Production Designer Scott Chambliss On Designing New Star Trek | TrekMovie.com
jump to navigation

Production Designer Scott Chambliss On Designing New Star Trek March 10, 2009

by Edward Gross , Filed under: ST09 Creative,Star Trek (2009 film) , trackback

Star Trek director JJ Abrams has worked for years with the Emmy-winning production designer Scott Chambliss and that includes the new Star Trek, but in a new interview with SciFi Now, he explains how he needed some convincing to go to the final frontier. The designer also talks about his approach to (re)designing the future, see excerpts below.  

 

Scott Chambliss: Designing the future’s past
Considering production designer Scott Chambliss’ long association with J.J. Abrams, from Alias through Mission: Impossible: III, it’s a little surprising to hear that he didn’t immediately jump into Star Trek with both feet when he had the opportunity. In the interview with SciFi Now, Chambliss admits:

My reaction was really all over the place. Of course I wanted to do J.J.’s next movie and I was excited that it was something we’d never done before. But at the same time, I also felt a lot of trepidation because of all of the history and baggage that the franchise has. That was a little troubling, but then we figured out how we had to approach it and moved forward. From a creative standpoint, there’s a real difference between approaching a piece of new material that doesn’t have any history and expectation based on what’s come before, and this only has history and expectation. It’s got a fervent group of believers in the material and there’s just so much that you had to be aware of beforehand in terms of what’s come before, which had to be considered before we even approached how we might want to do this newer version.


The new USS Enterprise

When they began designing Star Trek, Chambliss and Abrams had a few ground rules. First of all, they were primarily paying attention to The Original Series from the 1960s as well as Robert Wise’s Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the direction it took. The designer explains:

From that point, to me, what made Star Trek the concept radically different from sci-fi of the last 15 or 20 years, was Star Trek was optimistic. It wasn’t a view of the future that was post-Vietnam, post Nixon, post environmental disaster where the future was bleak and f—ed up. They worked things out and no matter how much conflict they had to deal with in outer space with different cultures, it was ultimately an optimistic framework for the story. That made me, just from a design point of view, look at what was going on. Not in the era that the original designer was drawing his references from, which was an updated Flash Gordon, but, instead, I was looking at what was contemporary and really forward-thinking and very scientifically based in architectural design, vehicle design and industrial design. I remember in one of our first meetings about the basic concept, we were saying the same things about the optimism and I began fleshing out with him visual references from there.


The new USS Enterprise Transporter room

It’s suggested that optimism from a design standpoint means something sleeker and “cleaner” looking than, perhaps, vessels from the Star Wars universe. Chambliss agrees, noting:

That’s part of it. From looking at the work I’ve done with JJ, you can tell that he always tries to make things accessible. He always tries to suggest real life. If you’re in a vehicle, whether it’s a military transport spaceship or an older, massive spaceship like the Kelvin in this movie, they’ve been around for a while. They’ve got bumps and scratches and paint is peeling and things have been fixed with gaffer’s tape. That’s real and that gives an environment a tactility that a super sleek, clean, everything-is-perfect kind of cartoon view of a perfect world would not have. That’s not what we were going for. At the same time, if you look at something like Children of Men, where everything is charred, sawed-off and smoking, it’s the opposite of that. It’s still a real world, there are still physical realities you have to deal with and things do still break down and explode and catch on fire, and that’s part of what they’re still dealing with in outer space and on planets. But, for instance, look at the new starship Enterprise: that’s optimistic in its sleek, beautiful design. If you make a comparison, that’s the digital world as opposed to the analog world of the older ship that’s 30 years older. There’s a streamlining effect that doesn’t imply that things will be forever perfect, but it’s the kind of thing where you look at it and you feel good about it; you feel good about the present and hopeful about the future.


The USS Kelvin

Without going too into detail, Chambliss does point out that there were elements of the original Star Trek that they wanted to maintain in this new incarnation:

You wouldn’t want to go on the Enterprise and it not look anything like you remember from the TV show. You want to make sure you have the heart and soul. We did three different passes on what this thing should be, and one of the things we focused on, of course, was the bridge. Particularly the captain’s chair and his relationship to Sulu and Chekov and their consoles in front of them. That was such a given. We wanted to keep Spock and Uhura in the places, physically, that we were so accustomed to seeing them in the old show. It was about recreating the physical relationship of these characters on the ship in a way that was familiar; we wanted similar spatial relationships and the rail that wraps around the central core of that area, without slavishly duplicating the color palettes. We wanted to update the technology in such a way that was super cool without being cheeseball.


Bridge of the new USS Enterprise

Chambliss goes on:

We wanted the bridge to feel really functional and very detailed and very multi-media. And very tactful at the same time. Sexy, by all means. One of the problems with the old show is that they had no budget and everything is made out of cardboard; it felt like a soapbox derby in outer space. All of that stuff is so sweet to look at now and it was definitely of its moment. Well, we wanted this one to be our moment, just brought further into the 21st century. But it’s virtually impossible for a movie to present technology that’s way ahead of its time, because everything we’re referring to right now as new, by the time the move comes out it’s all going to be out there. We didn’t want to find ourselves in the trap of making such a big fuss about the technology, that it was super cool and super new, when we would find ourselves down the road saying, ‘We’ve seen that at Sharper Image and it’s really fun to play with.’

For more of my interview with Chambliss, pick up a copy of SciFi Now #23 (available for to purchase online).

 

 

Visit Ed’s new websites: The alien Visitors are back! Learn about “V” both past and present at VisitorsAmongUs.com. Also, looking for some sci-fi in your superhero adventures? Keep up to date on the film adventures of Green Lantern and the Green Lantern Corps at GreenLanternFilm.net.

Comments

1. Harry Ballz - March 10, 2009

Cool stuff!

2. Jeyl - March 10, 2009

I still ponder the use of numerous practical bar code scanners.

3. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 10, 2009

Has there been an explaination for the bridge barcode scanners?

That’s not a dig. I just want to know what they do.

4. GnashPred - March 10, 2009

#2 I believe they are the holo-projectors for the viewsceen in front of the windshield /front window

5. johnny - March 10, 2009

cool

6. David - March 10, 2009

Interesting article about the approach to the design. Nice to see the respect to the old but with an attempt to update the look and keep it real — something that Nicholas Meyer did pretty effectively in Wrath of Khan.

7. SirMartman - March 10, 2009

ST : TFB is going to Rock!

:o)

8. Remington Steele - March 10, 2009

Off topic here a bit but does anyone else, whilst watching the new trailer when Kirk pulls the rip chord and lands on Nero’s device and the camera pulls in on his grinding his teeth to hold on-anyone else find themselves grinding their own teeth and thinking “hold on”??

Or is that just me being Nuts?

Personally I’d be going for the latter….

9. BaronByng - March 10, 2009

I’m glad they’re using modern architecture as a reference point. I see a lot of Santiago Calatrava in the new ship (ever seen the new wing of the museum in Milwaukee? Stunning).

10. C.S. Lewis - March 10, 2009

Is it possible to obtain a somewhat larger photograph of this man, perhaps 18″ x 18″, that would be suitable for mounting between a coloured bullseye and a cork backing?

:-)

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

11. The Last Maquis - March 10, 2009

But the Bridge Sucks though….it’s just fugly.

12. Eli1477 - March 10, 2009

Still think the bridge is a bit too big, feels so much like the Enterprise-E. Just wondering what the explanation for the vast differences between the old and new design of the ship in context with the film. Kelvin blown to hell facing some space octopus so we need a warship?

Obviously the sets need to be modernized and look like they’re part of a $150 million movie. If the heart and soul of Trek is indeed there then we have nothing to worry about.

13. Messianni - March 10, 2009

What the hell is wrong with #10? Sod off, mate.

14. c0mBaTkArL - March 10, 2009

Is it possible to obtain a somewhat larger photograph of this man, perhaps 18″ x 18″ and autographed, that would be suitable for mounting between a collection of new Star Trek posters?

:-)

Sincerely,
c0mBaTkArL

15. The Governator - March 10, 2009

Very interesting. Overall, I have been very pleased with the new design. I’m sure he will offend some hard-cores from his statements, but they are, all in all, very honest. I know that there are some fans here who don’t understand why they had to change the design as much as they did, but it is pretty obvious. You can’t deny the cheesiness of the original bridge. I agree, it gives the show a lot of its character and I love it, but if your goal is to go for something that looks like a future version of today, you really have to do a lot of changing to that design. I am actually pleased they are as faithful as they have been, especially in keeping the original layout of the bridge.

16. Rick Moyer - March 10, 2009

Great article! THANK YOU! I love reading about the behind the scenes stuff. Wouldn’t it be so cool to be part of that? To re-imagine the bridge of the Enterprise? Man, that would rock. I can’t wait to see the movie!

17. The Governator - March 10, 2009

10. C.S. Lewis

I was just waiting for you to say something like that. You’re so predictable.

Also, I hope your recovery has been going well.

Best Wishes,
The Governator

18. richpit - March 10, 2009

I like what I’ve seen so far and I’m confident that this movie is going to be great….barcode scanners and all.

19. Brandon McClure - March 10, 2009

Question: does this movie take place before or after The Cage. Or does it completely disregard it. Because I’m good with the last two lol. I bet it disregards The Cage, that would make alot of sense and I’d be good with that lol :P

20. Adam Shepherdson - March 10, 2009

I just watched the new trailer again.. every time I watch it.. it gets better.

If the movie is as well done as the trailer.. I think that everyone who sees it is in for a treat. I will ignore the things that don’t sit quite right with me about the re-imagination, and hope that they can explain.. and make it a great movie that will spawn a new generation of trek.

21. JT - March 10, 2009

Barcode readers on the bridge is just bad design! The new Enterprise is not beautiful, at best you can say it looks awkward!

22. Andrew - March 10, 2009

I like how the color of the uniforms stands out when on the bright, white bridge.

23. Kirk's Revenge - March 10, 2009

“My reaction was really all over the place.”

Yes, as are your designs.

24. Open Maw Productions - March 10, 2009

#10 No need for that.

#13 No need for that either.

#14 – This is more like an accurate and dignified Trekker response. Well done.

Interesting article. I would contest that the original designers just “updated Flash Gordan.” Because that isn’t what they did. They really had to be on the cutting edge with no money. There’s a certain charm and awesome in the designs of the original interiors, and alien scapes. Some bits held together by nothing more than glue, nails black paint and takeout lids painted gold. Fantastic, inventive, and artistic attitude.

The halls of the NeoEnterprise have grown on me (In particular the doors). I’m not certain how I feel about dividing the ship up into classes as has been suggested (That it gets all rusty and mucky in engineering). That doesn’t quite fit to me. Seems rather unwieldy to me to put that in there, but oh well. I like some aspects of the new bridge, and dislike other aspects.

The one thing im certainly starting to like with the overall redesign is the color scheme in some areas. Particualrly the pearl white seen on the exterior and in the hall ways. Reminds me of the Refit Enterprise in drydock in the first film.

25. C.S. Lewis - March 10, 2009

A second comment:

Quoth Chambliss, “We wanted to update the technology in such a way that was super cool without being cheeseball.”

With all due respect sir, these designs bear no resemblance to any command center, communication center or control base I have seen anywhere, at any time in history, in person or through written record, commercial, institutional or military. This includes various complexes at the Pentagon, the Westinghouse Supercomputing Center, assorted state EOC and numerous Fortune 500 headquarters that command billion upon billions of dollars of activity and millions upon millions of lives.

No sir, these are imaginary designs, virtual in nature, apparently targetted at teenagers and other youthful buyers of movie tickets, 99.999% of whom could not spell “command and control” if their lives depended on it, which in our bloated society of virtual indulgence, they certainly do not.

“Flash Gordon” as you so dismiss it, at least had the grace not to take itself seriously, in its humorous and delightful interplay of 19th C. admiralty and Great Powers politics (all gone apre le deluge), high tech Tesla-style gimmicks of the burgeoning Age of Electricity, and the good old-fashioned “cheese” cake of Dale Ardens esp as portrayed by the fetching Miss Jean Rogers.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

26. JT - March 10, 2009

And there is no windshield on the outside of the bridge of the new Enterprise! Barcode readers look stupid!

27. krikzil (aka Lixy) - March 10, 2009

“But at the same time, I also felt a lot of trepidation because of all of the history and baggage that the franchise has. That was a little troubling, but then we figured out how we had to approach it and moved forward.”

Master of understatement! What a job to have. I also like the “sweet” comment he made about he TOS bridge.

28. Dennis Bailey - March 10, 2009

#”Is it possible to obtain a somewhat larger photograph of this man, perhaps 18″ x 18″, that would be suitable for mounting between a coloured bullseye and a cork backing?”

“Lewis,” you’re easily as clever as those old Galactica fans who thought that drawing bleeding bullet holes and hatchet wounds in photographs of Ronald Moore and Bonnie Hammer was really, really funny.

For all your pretensions, you don’t even aspire to the basic civility of your overrated namesake.

29. Aaron R. - March 10, 2009

Looks sweet but the purists are gonna be mad at parts of this interview

30. Valar1 - March 10, 2009

Sharper Image? lol, that store went bankrupt, your designs would’ve been safe, dude.

31. kmart - March 10, 2009

I interviewed Chambliss a couple weeks ago and got pretty much the same sound-bytes (right down to the CHILDREN OF MEN reference), along with a lot of, ‘I can’t talk about that, mate” and the like. He did mention deliberately choosing to use lots of reflective surfaces because he hadn’t seen much of that in the SF films he researched (I’m guessing he must not have gone back as far as 2010 or 2001.)

My very strong impression is that they had nobody looking at things with an eye toward likely design progressions, for the ship or the city or anything else. He stressed that ILM worked from his dept’s designs, which normally would make me happy (not a fan of ILM DESIGN work), but in this instance, well, I don’t like the look of this pic at all.

32. C.S. Lewis - March 10, 2009

Dennis Bailey, you are the living embodiment of what the rest of us think when we hear the word “Trekkie”.

Live long and prosper,

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

33. DavidJ - March 10, 2009

I freakin LOVE the new designs, and how sleek and sexy and futuristic everything looks.

Unlike some fans, I can actually take a step back from TOS and look at things with an objective eye. And see that, yes, they did need to radically rethink some things.

34. tman - March 10, 2009

I like some of what he says but the comments that Star Trek TOS design was an update of Flash Gordon seems like he hasn’t researched Jeffries experience and how that fed into his designs. I think “updates of Flash Gordon” is a fair criticism of fantasy science fictions like Forbidden Planet, 1970’s Buck Rogers, Dr Who and pretty much anything BBC, and Babylon 5 (Star Wars breaks the mold). Star Trek’s color palate was certainly out of the 60’s, but the concepts of ergonomics and practicality that dictated the design aesthetic were very rooted in a practical take by Jeffries shaped by his experience rather than any dream or fantasy which is why the design of the Tricorder, the Phasers I and II, and the original Enterprise look so appealing years later. I think the iPodish, white-light look of this modern incarnation looks as much of today as TNG with touch screens looks very 90’s, and TMP and TWOK look very 80s– there’s nothing wrong or correctable about that. Few movies (blade runner comes to mind) don’t look dated years later If he were right about TOS being an update of Flash Gordon, the fan base would be begging for an update rather than cautious approaching this new film.

35. Nathan - March 10, 2009

From what I’ve seen so far (and that is, of course, a big caveat, to say the least) I’m not a fan of the new bridge and Enterprise interiors. To my taste, it’s all a little too on-the-nose “futuristic”– the art-deco, iPod “future,” where everything is either plastic or stainless steel, shiny white or polished chrome. Frankly, I find it the whole style hideously ugly…give me bright red hand-rails and black consoles with blinky red buttons over that any day of the week… :)

And why? I’ll tell you why. What I’m really looking for is…color! Give me color, bright color, and lots of color, and I’m a happy man. Stainless steel just doesn’t cut it in my book.

Of course, all of this is very, *very* preliminary…I’m fully prepared (and excited) to be pleasantly surprised when I actually see these sets on the big screen.
But, one way or the other, I’ll live…:)

36. Darkowski - March 10, 2009

Chambliss:

“[…] look at the new starship Enterprise: that’s optimistic in its sleek, beautiful design.”

“You wouldn’t want to go on the Enterprise and it not look anything like you remember from the TV show. […] one of the things we focused on, of course, was the bridge.”

…. no comments….

37. Sulan the vulcan ventrilquist - March 10, 2009

Is it just me or does anyone else not like the swirly effect of the transporter? I thought the particle drop down effect looked just fine

38. Valar1 - March 10, 2009

15

Personally, I would’ve enjoyed the bridge design more if he’d kept some of the original color scheme around. While the all white does look futuristic and optimistic, the updated/changed look would’ve been easier to swallow if the colors were similar.

39. JT - March 10, 2009

I think the movie will probably be very good and entertaining and I will see it atleast once! I can really appreciate JJ’s appreciation of TMP!

40. DavidJ - March 10, 2009

25

Huh? On the one hand you chastise them for not making things realistic enough and dumbing things down for the youth… and then you suggest they’re taking things too seriously? lol

Making something “super cool” by definition implies they’re NOT taking things too seriously.

Besides, why the heck would they want to make the bridge look like something we’d see today?

41. Ben IV - March 10, 2009

“We wanted the bridge to feel really functional”

fail

“We wanted the bridge to feel like lots of little lights are cheap in the future”

win

“We’ve seen that at Sharper Image and it’s really fun to play with.”

fail

“We’ve seen that at every supermarket check out line since the 80’s, and everyone will recognize it as being anachronistic.”

win

and as long as I’m at it, where do those glass panels in the transporter room come from, the movie “Timeline?”

42. captblsisko - March 10, 2009

I dunno. As one who saw The Menagerie on the big screen I gotta say Matt Jefferies’ designs hold up really well in today’s day and age. That being said, the update as seen in Star Treks I-IV are more… I don’t want to say respectful, but definately different and yet still recognizable as something from that Universe, whereas this new Enterprise is… too different.

“…look at the new starship Enterprise: that’s optimistic in its sleek, beautiful design. If you make a comparison, that’s the digital world as opposed to the analog world of the older ship that’s 30 years older.”

I really have to disagree on this one. The “sleek, beautiful” design of the TOS and the Refit Enterprises are more “sleek” and “beautiful” than this new one. Matt Jefferies’ designs are not that… cardboard looking or fake looking. As much as I’m not one to defend Star Trek: Enterprise, I gotta say that the Mirror Universe episodes show that the old designs hold their own in this “digital world”.

43. Jax Maxton - March 10, 2009

He should say, “We wanted the bridge and the rest of the ship to feel like you were walking into a giant Apple store. Everything’s white and shiny with lots of computer monitor doing God knows what, as long as it’s cool.”

44. johnny - March 10, 2009

it this were the frist trek known to man kind design wise, and the 60’s designs were to be used in the movie you would still be complaining

45. DGill - March 10, 2009

Over all, I think the new bridge design is pretty sweet (especially the view screen and the sleek white overtones), but I still can’t get over all of the bright lights. It’s like twenty police officers standing in a circle shining flashlights in the viewers’ eyes! :)

46. Clay "Why-oh-why-can't-we-have-red-nacelle-caps" Farrow - March 10, 2009

#10: Funny stuff, Mr. Lewis! I can’t STAND the iBridge.

47. Jax Maxton - March 10, 2009

“As much as I’m not one to defend Star Trek: Enterprise, I gotta say that the Mirror Universe episodes show that the old designs hold their own in this “digital world”.”

Dude, that’s so true. All they really need to do is update the panels so that they aren’t blinking lights and still slides on the monitors and you’d get a very futuristic looking bridge. What always liked about the old show was how it felt a bit like a nice submarine. It wasn’t so colorful as to be distracting, yet it wasn’t dark and gloomy and mechanical either.

48. Sean - March 10, 2009

I’m loving the design of the transporter room! Keeps enough the same and yet changes enough to make it look fresh! Nicely done!

49. tman - March 10, 2009

40-

A conscious, studied attempt to make something “super cool” and taking oneself too seriously are not contradictory. I see my 4 year old doing it all the time.

50. Ben IV - March 10, 2009

#37

Despite the fact that I “like” the swirly effect (if they ‘had’ to change something, they did make an effect that looks cool, and should probably be difficult to reproduce in a TV series), the raining down thing makes more sense from a practicle standpoint. I mean, if you’re moving lots of charged particles from a long ways away all the way to the ground in 5 seconds, they’re going to be accelerated rapidly at both ends. That will tend to produce some sort of radiation, even if it’s not visible. The direction of the “raining” should probably be related to the direction of the transporter “emitters” much like it was when the Enterprise beamed away the scorpion attack cruiser that Picard & Data were in in Nemesis, which was one of the better points of that film.

oh, and the way they threw in the enterprise theme when it happened was so amazingly inspired. Gave me goose bumps. It was kind of like “who’s awesome, the Enterprise! Who can beam a shuttlecraft? The Enterprise? Who’s your rescuing you from a cloaked-ship fighting scene when the enemy is about to grab you with a tractor beam and crush you like a tiny bug but I saved your life transporter daddy? The Enterprise. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo, you can’t touch—-

—-I’m over here now.
lol

51. DavidJ - March 10, 2009

34

I definitely agree that the design work on TOS was MUCH more original and inventive than what you saw in shows like Doctor Who or Lost in Space (which were still using rocket ships and flying saucers for all their spaceships, for instance).

But you have to remember Chambliss is approaching Trek from an outsider’s perspective, which I think is really needed at this point. I think Zimmerman and the other Trek designers hung onto the past a little too long, and tried to be too safe with everything they came up with (lest they upset the fans).

Plus I just got damn tired of the “dark and moody” look of all their sets. I want to see “bright and optimistic” in Trek again.

52. smarkey - March 10, 2009

22. Andrew – March 10, 2009

I like how the color of the uniforms stands out when on the bright, white bridge.

I agree, and feel this was deliberate. They definitely wanted the (almost) original uniform look. Get 10 characters up there and that’s a lot of color. On the big screen, having those *and* bright red railings *and* orange jell lights on the walls, etc. would just be too much. The characters would just fade into it (much as the pastel crew disappeared into the drab environments of TMP).

They probably realized you can have colorful sets or colorful costumes, but not both, and (rightly) made the call in favor of the iconic uniforms. Ask “what does Captain Kirk look like?” to a person on the street and they’re going to think of black pants, “yellow” shirt, and black collar. The recognition factor of the original uniforms is greater than the detail of the sets.

53. hal3tx - March 10, 2009

I for one welcome the plethora of barcode scanners on the bridge although I would hope they are actually RFID tag readers or some futuristic other scanner/reader.

They actually look a little like joysticks to me.

Or maybe just handles that emit a small inertial dampenig field in place of seatbelts.

54. Eric - March 10, 2009

The new bridge sucks

55. Eric - March 10, 2009

The geek in me is bothered by where the turbolift door is, don’t know why. And the glass all over the place is not needed, serves no purpose. But, i hated the Enterprise when i first saw it, and it has slowly grown on me to the point where i have it as my wall paper, so who knows.

56. Sid - March 10, 2009

I really, really don’t like the new Enterprise bridge. It reminds me of an Apple Store.

That said, I don’t care! I’ll be watching this movie for the story.

57. Anthony Pascale - March 10, 2009

i understand that people have lots of opinions about the designs in the new movie and many passionate views, however there is no need to be rude

As always the rules here are to be civil

CS, warning for stepping over the line…tone it down

58. Ben IV - March 10, 2009

#51
“Plus I just got d*** tired of the “dark and moody” look of all their sets. I want to see “bright and optimistic” in Trek again.”

Amen!
I’ve been saying it since Generations, ahem, STVII
Did you know they repainted the wood-color in engineering to make it darker for that movie? Turned off half the lights, and put big grates over the lights they did have…
Ent-E interiors were so goth-meets-maroon-&-gold, you couldn’t tell the original from the borg-i-fications! (and what was up with that one railing that ran right down the middle of that one corridor?) lol

and with that I’m going to go back to my hobby of rebuilding the Ent-D Engine room from balsa wood..

59. Alex Prewitt - March 10, 2009

The barcode readers aren’t even disguised!! It really is sloppy design work. I can even see a roll of duct tape between the scanners on the helm/nav console. Ya really phoned it in Chambliss…

60. anon - March 10, 2009

I hate when TOS is put down as cheap-looking. The sets got better and better looking, even through the end of season 3 when the budgets kept getting smaller. I dare Mr. Chambliss to work such miracles under the same conditions.

Well, Paramount got what it wanted, an action-oriented reboot with a young cast playing familiar characters (and even some Academy action for good measure), with some parallel universe nonsense to keep the fans in line.
I’m just not sure if there is any of Roddenberry’s optimism in the middle of all this shiny, white plastic.

Manny Coto, call your office. We may be in need of some serious retconning, when all is said and done.

61. Eric - March 10, 2009

But my biggest problem with this flick is the idea that the whole crew were in the same Academy Class together, not right.

62. BaronByng - March 10, 2009

Let’s put it this way. Dennis Bailey MAKES new Trek. Other people stand on the sidelines and impotently snipe at things they cannot hope to influence, using ad hominem arguments, instead of contributing intelligent discussion, much less actually DOING things.

If Dennis Bailey’s a “Trekkie,” whatever pejorative is implied there, then I’m a Trekkie too.

Oh, and as a professional user interface / user experience designer and information architect, the new iBridge makes a lot of sense to me. We recognize it as a Starfleet design, the basic placement of all the items is in fact identical to the TOS bridge (viewscreen, turbolifts, science station, comms station, helm, captain’s chair, consoles with screens above them.

What is the purpose of those screens (now a unified widescreen ‘strip’) above the consoles? They’re not for the people sitting below them, they’re for the captain and for other bridge crew to be able to monitor key indicators at a distance. Likewise, the transparent aluminum data screens are a way to overlay other information from the Captain’s point of view.

If we were to be REALLY futuristic, they’d all have direct implant visual cortex data displays like the Matrix, or 3D holographic interfaces — but that’d be too distracting, and too far from the Trek that we know. Frankly, the iBridge is quite conservative…I really don’t see much to complain about unless you don’t like the aesthetics, which is fair enough, but you can’t claim that it isn’t functional without also dismissing the original bridge as well.

63. BaronByng - March 10, 2009

Oh and, as a longtime Wacom tablet user, has anyone noticed in the stills and screenshots, that many bridge crew members are using pen-tablet stylus controls at their stations?

64. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 10, 2009

33. DavidJ

Count me in as one of those TOS fans.
But, I can accept the new movie as is, in fact, I am as thrilled as you appear.

But after the endless comments about TOS style and continuity. I think there is room for another movie that showcaess TOS.

They gotta be tinking sequels. I think there was a comment from long ago about not knowing where to go after an epic storyline.

How about this. Since most of our loved characters are ‘apparently,’ in a new quantum spinter-verse, but one based on the ‘real’ timeline adventures, why not have a sequel revisit the original again.

I would not mind seeing these two Kirks set against each other.
One too young and brash bent on saving the ship, regardless of station vs. Starfleets best Captain and crew.

The story?
Obviously they can’t both exist so someone’s gotta go.

It would have to be seemless CGI and voice work for the old crew though.

65. Ben IV - March 10, 2009

One last comment and then I’m really going to take measurements from the QuickTime VR of the engine room from the interactive technical manual..

#28
““Lewis,” you’re easily as clever as those old Galactica fans who thought that drawing bleeding bullet holes and hatchet wounds in photographs of Ronald Moore and Bonnie Hammer was really, really funny.”

Pardon me for not understanding the context of your comment, but don’t they do that at the end of the credits anyway?

Please, please please don’t let Ron Moore touch Star Trek the way he did Galactica. We’d end up with a female Worf having a baby with Data… sorry wrong series…
We’d end up with a female Spock getting it on with Kirk, but married to Sulu, and would turn out to be one of Mudd’s women… while Uhura commits suicide, McCoy says “damn it, I’m a doctor, not a smoker”, Checkov leads a mutiny and looses a leg, and Scotty is a borg who tries to repair the ship with nanites…

Balsa wood, here I come…

66. smarkey - March 10, 2009

61. Eric – March 10, 2009

“But my biggest problem with this flick is the idea that the whole crew were in the same Academy Class together, not right.”

I could be wrong, but I’m reasonably certain that’s not Mr. Chambliss’ fault.

67. DesiluTrek - March 10, 2009

That turbolift door on the bridge looks like something created for a parody version, not the real thing. You mean to tell me that somehow looks more “realistic”-futuristic than the original of nearly 45 years ago? Give me a break.

Explain the functional purpose of glowing fluorescent lights through the floor. Sure, it might look “cool” to your design eye, but it makes my eyes roll for the lack of believability.

If I like this movie, it will be in spite of the designs. They do not enhance Matt Jefferies’ original work at all.

68. Kevin - March 10, 2009

The design is clumsy; it’s full of superfluous additions. Even the floor is too busy and distracting. The spot lights shining in the crew members faces at each console make little sense. The standing clear panels seem dangerous.

And of course, it retains virtually nothing of the original other than the center seat, navigation/ helm and surrounding stations. It’s less familiar looking as the TOS bridge than any other incarnation of any of the other bridges.

This new ship is about as much the original Enterprise as the Enterprise D was; a missed opportunity for sure. I would have loved to have seen the old ship, updated for the 21st century and tweaked for the big screen. Instead, I see something pretending to be something it is not. They completely revamped it only for the sake of revamping it. I’m sure it will bring in the little kids, being that it looks nothing like the original. That way they can show that it truly has no ties to the original and is nothing more than a reboot. I’ll sit this one out.

69. lostrod - March 10, 2009

#57 Anthony

I must have missed something. Where/When did C.S. Lewis step over the line?

I’ve posted here and got flamed all over the place with no objection. Which is why I don’t post that often.

I’m skimming back through the posts and don’t see anything from CS that would warrant such a warning.

Regards.

70. Oxmyx - March 10, 2009

@10 C.S. Lewis lol

http://www.jennaphillips.com/images/ss/scott_c.jpg
That’s one small photo for you, one giant objective for mankind.

71. Selor - March 10, 2009

With those “Barcodescanners” it looks much more like “The Cage” Version of the Bridge and they had those roundy, eggy miniscreens on moveable tubes so… I don’t know why to complain? And last but not least, Apple don’t own the Colorschema “All white” so why referring always to an Apple Store? It is just a brighter more White and light beige toned color scheme on the Bridge and I like it much more than those dark grey, washed-out yellow colorschemas on previous bridges and it DOES look more functional and more like a command center than the Bridge of a Cruise Liner…

72. Cylon - March 10, 2009

C.S. Lewis, you are one angry trekkie. Relax.

73. Mike Ten - March 10, 2009

I agree with #61 Eric. That would mean there are no experienced officers on the Enterprise besides (hopefully) Spock. Maybe Spock served on another ship since Enterprise wasn’t built till later in this version of history (the Cage). Kirk and all of his prior experiences on other starships before commanding Enterprise are gone, and Chekov is graduation with the older Kirk and even older McCoy. Mr. Scott seems to have been around for a while but may have lost his marbles alittle.

And as for Enterprise, how can you steal design cues from TMP and not have the slick seat restraints that TMP Enterprise had? The one thing I really liked about the new bridge is the various rails to grab onto incase of emergency or zero gravity. Even infront of the main console where Chekov is at there was a railing.

As for the viewscreen I hope it is a view screen and not a window. If Archer’s NX-01 Enterprise can have a viewscreen how in 50 to 100 years later the Kelvin has a giant window?

74. The Governator - March 10, 2009

Wow, the canonistas are out tonight! I am debating whether or not I should read any more posts. People seem to be getting really overworked.

75. Ben IV - March 10, 2009

#67
“Explain the functional purpose of glowing fluorescent lights through the floor”

Voyager’s bridge had brightly lit floor panels, so floor panels are cannon. Yeah…, just like when they tried to tell us that the new ship is entirely cannon by showing how each little detail that we were complaining about was on a previous ship, without any regards as to how they look together at all…..

#67
“That turbolift door on the bridge looks like something created for a parody version, not the real thing”

It looks like Sisko’s office door. Which makes me wonder if Chambliss understands the difference between Star Fleet & Cardassians.

But lots of folks have been saying the same thing about a whole bunch of design choices – they look more like a parody than the real thing. Especially the shiny floors in the hallways. “the floors are so shiny”- Galaxy Quest

And I’ve now had it with people comparing the new bridge to an Apple Store. Johny Ive would never put so many useless lights scattered around the room all pointing into people’s faces instead of illuminating the stuff they’re looking at.

76. fred - March 10, 2009

I really hope there’s more going on visually during the transport process than just the external fireflies over a fade out and in. There needs to be some internal energy cascade happening, and I hope we’re just not seeing it all yet.

77. Fubamushu - March 10, 2009

That new design is sleek?

78. JT - March 10, 2009

I do like the new transporter!

79. Spock - March 10, 2009

I wish it were possible for me to say that I dislike this guys designs without some ninny accusing me of being stuck in the 60’s…

80. Poizen_Prince - March 10, 2009

“an older, massive spaceship like the Kelvin”

Looks like I was right & the Kelvin is much bigger than it looks…

Cool…

:-D

I’m pretty sure now that the huge saucer in the trailer (as I said before, my guess is the name is U.S.S. MAYFLOWER [and yes, I did guess that before anyone else – I don’t mean to sound childish, but I’m getting sick & tired of people not reading my older posts in other threads & then accusing *me* of ‘copying’ things *I* said first – it has happened a lot recently]) is from another ship of the same class as the Kelvin.

A colony-founding ship capable of carrying the ‘800’ lives that George Kirk saves.

81. Jason P Hunt - co-creator of COMET TALES - March 10, 2009

What happens the first time they shake the cameras, tell everyone to jump because the ship’s been hit, and someone goes through a glass panel?

Sheesh.

I can understand this team wanting to put its own stamp on things. I can understand wanting to make it look “real” and “practical” and “functional” and whatever. But the iBridge doesn’t resemble the original except in the placement of the chair and forward consoles. If this movie is part of continuity, it at least needs to reflect some of the original design aesthetic, just to be consistent.

Of course, since we have the deux ex machina of quantum mechanics and time travel, they get a big fat wormhole in the midst of continuity. They may have felt that gave them a little more creative freedom than they should have had.

That being said, I’m sure I’ll be in line at least once, just to see how all this plays out. We’re all just speculating and spinning what little detail we have. It’s a fun game, but ultimately, most of us are going to be mistaken about a lot of it.

82. Jax Maxton - March 10, 2009

79. Spock

lol. i agree.

83. Unmutual - March 10, 2009

“sweet”
“super-cool” (twice!)

Great. A movie created by (and for) adults with the vocabulary and sensibilities of Eric Cartman.

It’s dead, Jim.

84. Brett Campbell - March 10, 2009

28 – How do you figure the real C.S. Lewis is overrated? He was an extraordinary author, thinker, Christian and human being, IMHO.

85. The Governator - March 10, 2009

84. Brett Campbell

I agree whole heartedly.

86. Brett Campbell - March 10, 2009

85 – Governator – Always nice to meet a fellow admirer of the man. I’m writing my dissertation on Tolkien and him.

87. Will_H - March 10, 2009

I like what theyve done with the interior for the most part, granted a lot of it looks like its the iBRIDGE but it could be worse, it looks functional, and thats what counts. In a way it looks like it could be the natural evolution of the NX interior from Enterprise, and I for one loved the inside of the NX, even if the outside looked goofy. I like the outside design of the new E more as I see more of it, but I still think the nacelles could have been done a lot better, but oh well.

88. Thomas Jensen - March 10, 2009

I’ve given up on this looking much like the original show in any way. Not that it had to be all that close, but this isn’t what I’d expected. I’m not much for the look of that bridge and ship.

And I didn’t really like that backhanded comment from the production designer about the original series design.

I was on that set and from what I remember most everything was wood not cardboard. Matt Jefferies and the production did amazing things with what they had to work with. Nothing was based upon Buck Rogers, either.

I’m sure this movie will be fantastic, but a little more respect for the original series could be in order.

It doesn’t have the look of the original all that much and that’s not so bad, but I doubt this production design will be looked upon with as much reverence as the original Star Trek has had with many people.

I hope the story overshadows any concern with the new production design.

89. AqAZAr - March 10, 2009

The orange bar on the bottom of the Transporter makes me squeel with joy.

90. Skagen - March 10, 2009

I think my biggest problem with that bridge is the lack of color on the displays and panels. It’s just the constant wrap around blue up against the overly lit white sets. If I had to report to duty to a place that was that bright and dull everyday, I’d get a headache real quick. Just not functional in my opinion. Still like the TMP sets better. If you remember the last few seconds in Star Trek IV, the final frontier, the glimpse of the bridge that we get kind of reminds me of this new one.. really big, open and WHITE. I didn’t like it then, and I don’t like it now. Would have really liked to see a slightly updated version of the TMP bridge with a more dimly lit environment. But hey, w/e, I’m still going to see this movie several times the first week it’s out. I love me some trek.

91. stevesf - March 10, 2009

Funny, when he mentioned the Sharper Image in the interview, I thought maybe the bridge looked a bit like the late retail outlet showrooms. The Enterprise kind of looks like one of their fancy self back massage devices.

92. Brett Campbell - March 10, 2009

88- Very well said.

93. stevesf - March 10, 2009

Oh and I agree that Matt Jefferies designs are beautiful and I think still hold up. The original Enterprise was an is a classic design. The bridge design was functional and the colors and materials were pretty good considering the time and cost of the set. The small details, ear piece for Uhura, those curious lights that chirped when flashing below the main screen, all of it–timeless.

Ok, the mini skirts and big hair gals, well ok not so timeless, but fun!

94. DavidJ - March 10, 2009

88

I’m sure it was just a figure of speech. I doubt anyone REALLY believes the sets on TOS were made of cardboard.

In any case, as much as I love the design work in TOS, there’s no denying that it looks pretty simplistic by today’s standards, and very much like something out of the 60s.

95. RMBurnett - March 10, 2009

Folks,

Chambliss says, “My reaction was really all over the place.” Which seems fitting, because his designs are, too.

My problem with ALL the design work for the new TREK (including the design of the ship itself) is that I don’t believe in it. At all.

Previous TREKs had their design rooted in military designs and extrapolations of current technology. It always appeared credible to me. Never more so then when Trek made the jump to the big screen in TMP.

The designs of the new film scream SCI FI MOVIE!!! first…crediblity second. A perfect example of this are the costumes. In recent fantasy cinema, we’ve seen laser-patterend clothes on Spider-Man, Superman and now Trek. But the thing is, this fabric etching is a current filmmaking trick of costuming to make solid colors appear more interesting on-screen than they actually are. It doesn’t, however convince me that the costumes are more credible or believable. I don’t believe a military organization such as Starfleet would design fabrics, which, when you think about it, have a built-in element of “cute” to them.

Our current military doesn’t have laser-etched flags on their fabrics. Nor would they ever.

So, this laser-etched Delta Shield business…is kinda’ dumb…and more importantly, it LOOKS dumb on-screen.

Just like bar-code readers on the bridge. Aside from some kind of perceived (and misguided) idea they’re visually cool…what are they there for…? We shouldn’t be able to recognize STORE-BOUGHT props of today the bridge of the ENTERPRISE.

You know what that is…? It’s BAD PRODUCTION DESIGN.

Much the same as shooting the Engineering Section of the Enterprise in a BREWERY…which looks exactly like what it is in the film…A BREWERY.

Also, during the course of TOS, each Starship and Starbase had their own insignia. The Enterprise had its delta shield. But this small detail added to the rich tapestry of the Trek Universe. No one actually came out and pointed this out during the original series…but viewers could notice this little detail on their own and infer it was true. Details such as these harked back to our own military practice of different missions creating specfic mission patches and insignias for themselves. Again, a design element of TOS with roots in our own time serving to add to the belivablity of the future dipicted by the entire series.

When TNG gave us the standard issue Enterprise Insignia communicator being used by all of Starfleet, it was assumed by fans the organization adopted this symbol fleetwide because of the success of the original TOS Enterprise. Again, while never stated, it made sense and seemed believable.

The Abrams TREK Universe simply doesn’t have this kind of thought put into its design elements as previous TREKS do, which is unfortunate. If it did, there simply wouldn’t be very recognizable over the counter bar code scanners on the bridge.

That being said, I don’t believe bad production design makes a bad movie, just like I don’t believe good production design makes a good movie (Van Helsing, anyone).

96. Carlg - March 10, 2009

Has anyone considered that the “barcode scanners” could be a shout-out to those bendy comm units on the console in “The Cage”?

Like in this pic, on the helm console:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/d/dd/Constitution_class_bridge_2250s.jpg

Ha! Precedent! :)

97. DavidJ - March 10, 2009

93

Agreed. It’s amazing how much thought and detail went into all the props and designs on that show.

It’s even more impressive when you compare it with the utterly generic stuff they were doing on LiS during the same time. The interior of the Jupiter 2 is just some flat walls with some blinking lights randomly stuck on. lol

98. Capt. Jax. - March 10, 2009

I’ve been thinking alot about the “bar scanners” on the consoles of Sulu and Chekov. The new view screen looks pretty advanced, almost like a touch screen and probably has different modes of operation.

Mere speculation on my part but why can’t they be laser pointer type controls for operation the new view screen?

99. kmart - March 10, 2009

47,

When the PD mentions there were three passes on the bridge, he does indicate that after a way too futuristic attempt, that he scaled it back to something that was unmistakeably like the TOS bridge, but he and Abrams were both bored with that, and so what came out in the end was something in between those two extremes.

Too bad there doesn’t seem to be a ‘making of’ book, because I’d like to have seen the art for that second try at a bridge. Have a feeling that is probably what I’d’ve liked.

100. RMBurnett - March 10, 2009

Folks,

BTW…it’s not that those bar code scanners are there that I have a problem with…it’s that I RECOGNIZE them as Bar Code scanners of TODAY. It completely shatters the illusion of credibility I’ve always had while watching TREK. They could’ve just as easily DESIGNED an original prop…especially since such props would feature so prominently in every sequence shot on the bridge.

I’m willing to bet Abrams didn’t know what they were…because I can’t believe he’d allow them to be featured along with his principal actors knowing they scream early 21st Century.

101. Gabriel Bell - March 10, 2009

57. Thanks again for trying to keep it real in here.

102. RMBurnett - March 10, 2009

Folks,

One last thing…While it’s okay for movies such as STAR WARS and ALIEN to portray the USED and WEATHERED look of the future, the reality of interstellar travel is such that I find it hard to believe just because a Starship is 30 years old, they’d ever keep it together with duct tape, or that wear and tear would be readily apparent.

They’d be the best-maintained vehicles in the history of humanity. They’d have to be in order to function.

103. DavidJ - March 10, 2009

95

The delta pattern on the uniforms is just to keep them from looking so flat and dull on screen (and like simple long sleeve t-shirts). Personally I was never distracted by the patterns on the Spidey or Superman suits– the overall effect was they looked more sophisticated than a costume you’d get in a Halloween store, and that’s all that mattered. Same thing applies here.

As for the barcode scanners, until the fans started pointing it out incessantly, it never really registered with me. I guess I just don’t pay much attention to them in the stores I go to (and I suspect the general public doesn’t either). In any case, they look unusual enough that I have no problem buying them as some weird scifi prop.

And at least they aren’t as dorky as the dustbuster phasers on TNG. lol

104. kmart - March 10, 2009

101

Real? Really? Isn’t it just more of the usual, ‘Bailey is above the law’ crap?

105. Will - March 10, 2009

Uh… Sharper Image went out of business… so if you were planning to show things in the movie that we’d have seen at that store… you know, that means you designed crap that’s very VERY outdated now.

That said, the captain’s chair is the only piece of the bridge I like. As far as I’ve seen, it’s the only part of the Enterprise, inside and out, that I like.

I, too, would like to see what other designs there were as I would be willing to bet they would be something I would have preferred to the Apple looking bridge that’s in the film itself.

Honestly, I’m kind of better I’ll like the Kelvin bridge WAY more.

106. Scotty - March 10, 2009

I really wish you guys would shut up about the iBridge and whatever else yer whining about.

Things have to change. it’s the way of the world.

Just go and see the god damned movie and keep your mouths shut! Miserable, sad people.

107. kmart - March 10, 2009

106,

As opposed to people who are so insecure about their TREK that they have to try to shout down or embarrass anybody who has something negative to say?

108. New Horizon - March 10, 2009

95. RMBurnett – March 10, 2009

Oh give me a break. You could easily pick out some props on TOS…like the episode where Mccoy is using a microphone as a medical gadget…or the salt shakers.

As for the insignia, Next Gen didn’t give us the fleet wide usage of the Enterprise insignia…Star Trek The Motion Picture did. Guess they didn’t put too much thought into that either.

109. Kevin - March 10, 2009

Wow… 106. That’s a really well thought out response.

Yeah, things had to change, to update them and make them work on the big screen.

They didn’t need to throw away the whole original design and add a bunch of unecessary crap to make it look better. It sure as hell didn’t need to be so busy that it distracts from the people on the screen.

The only point to doing that was to say “this ain’t your daddy’s Trek.”

110. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - March 10, 2009

Epic fail.

111. The TOS Purist aka The Purolator - March 10, 2009

Epic fail.

112. RMBurnett - March 10, 2009

108.

Point is, this Trek is the most expensive Trek film BY FAR then any previous Trek production. We shouldn’t recognize items of today as showing up in the design of the new film. It’s is just lazy production design…just as shooting in the Anheiser Busch brewery was.

The very unique use of everyday objects as props in the original series was not readily apparent to viewers of the time. And when McCoy used a microphone, in COURT MARTIAL, it was to record SOUND, so as a viewer, it made sense.

Regarding TMP, you’re simply wrong. Starfleet still used multiple mission insignias…:

http://www.yourprops.com/view_item.php?movie_prop=18091

So yes, they DID in fact, put a lot of though into it. In fact, they had a person on the production who ONLY designed logos…the terrific Lee Cole.

113. pinky - March 10, 2009

Hm. Let me see. I don’t like the new knobby Enterprise; don’t like the corridors; don’t like the bridge and the way every one of those dang blue busy lights reflects on the view screen; don’t like the viewscreen; don’t much like the transporter effect from what I’ve seen… but I do like the Kelvin. And I do like the general layout of the transporter pads. And the drilling platform’s not bad.

But I can’t say it passes.

It doesn’t have to be what I’ve seen before, but it could look a little more like Star Trek for sure.

114. Captain Otter - March 10, 2009

I dig the new bridge. I think it is clean, imaginative, and is a fitting evolution of the TOS concept.

And yes, I’m posting from a Mac.

And for those who wanted the TOS bridge on the big screen, just go find yourselves a bunch of young 20-somethings and watch that Mirror Universe ep of Enterprise and ask them how well it holds up.

Bet you guys think The Andy Griffith Show could be re-run in prime-time for big ratings too.

115. Turbolift - March 10, 2009

It’s no wonder Trek fans carry such a universally accepted stereotype. Often it’s really not deserved, but it’s true enough to perpetuate itself. It’s almost like folks that don’t want everyone else to like their favorite band, and if it does happen to get popular then the band obviously sold out…it’s no longer their own private entity. I say, if you don’t like the designs, the actors, the story, the trailers, Kirk’s eye color or whatever other mundane reason you give for being oh so very unhappy…then don’t go see the movie. It’s really that simple. This movie is going to do very well, especially for a Trek movie…even if you don’t personally go. Those of us who expect to enjoy the film will likely go once again in your place. I’m happy to share my appreciation for Trek with folks who never cared about it, and come May 8th, many new fans will be born. I for one, am excited about that.

116. I am not Herbert - March 10, 2009

RE: Enterprise Bridge “We wanted to update the technology in such a way that was super cool without being cheeseball.”

I’m leaning towards fail here also… =(

The TOS “cardboard” bridge is WAY less cheeseball IMHO.

…same goes for the new phaser…

117. tman - March 10, 2009

51- I actually don’t find flaw with the designs (I own an iPod and a Mac Book– both are beautifully designed). I think the most important aspects of Jeffrey’s interior design was ergonomics of the controls and seating and I don’t think they made any mistakes there. I just think this designer who is bringing a fresh perspective acts like he doesn’t know who Jeffries was and how the basics of the design were set. My understanding from what is written elsewhere is Jeffries was underwhelmed by TMP’s design work so I’m not making a comparison to TMP or TWK. Dark red tactical lighting a la TWK doesn’t make any sense in the universe of TOS and some of the seating designs were ridiculous outside of a hotel lounge. I think this Enterprise bridge set is infinately better than much of Trek after TOS. I just think his comments about TOS design seem to pick up on the more superficial aspects that were influenced by the time it was made including budget, techonology — not the fundamentals of the design. He then points out things in his design that he thinks transcend time (unlike TOS) and I smile and wonder if he is kidding his audience or himself….

118. doubting thomas - March 10, 2009

this confirms everything i’ve said about the way these filmmakers are looking at the original series, as though it’s something hopelessly out of date in need of repair. maybe they should have watched “in a mirror, darkly” before starting work on this movie.

119. John from Cincinnati - March 10, 2009

I respect their efforts. I appreciate their dedication to optimism.

I just would not have done the bridge the way they did. They could have more evenly tempered the old bridge with a new one. The complete redesign is unrecognizable (and that’s not a good thing).

120. DavidJ - March 10, 2009

118

Just because WE’RE all into the “retro scifi” thing doesn’t mean the vast moviegoing public is. Simply modernizing the TOS sets like Mirror Darkly did wouldn’t have been nearly enough.

Besides, am I the only Trek fan who thinks TOS is defined more by the characters and storytelling than the damn sets? Yeah they were cool, but come on.

121. DavidJ - March 10, 2009

As long as the bridge looks high-tech and futuristic, then that’s good enough for me.

122. Yammer - March 10, 2009

The Bridge will look fantastic. Its pearlescent scheme is emblematic of the futurism/optimism that was the design aesthetic. It makes the colours of the 60s original pop — the gold, crimson, blue and black.

Yes it is busy, and, sure, there are other options — they could have gone super-dark, for coolness, but the Star Wars cornered the dark bridge set. This is a cheery optimist Roddenberry bridge.

Now, as to the idea that the young will see this because it looks new:

exactly.

There are $150million reasons why.

123. McCoy - March 10, 2009

Simply the weakest part of the film by far. Whether it’s Chambliss or JJ, the production design fails to tie the new movie to the previous TOS visuals. And, uhm, yes, that should have been a stronger goal.

124. xai - March 10, 2009

new universe, different ship same name same result

125. Canon Schmanon - March 10, 2009

I’ve seen a lot of stills from movies, and often thought the designs were awful. However, when viewed on the movie screen, this usually evaporates. That being said, I don’t have a problem with the new designs. Maybe some of you will be placated once you see the film, though I suspect a few of you have chosen to cry no matter what.

126. ShawnP - March 10, 2009

EPIC WIN! Thanks for your design skills, Chambliss. Much appreciated.

127. McCoy - March 10, 2009

First off, there is a difference between the design and the construction of an object. You can puts tons of money into building a poor design but in the end, it’s still a poor design. Expensive, but not meeting the required visual goals.

Bad design does exist. Sorry, Chambliss was not up to this task and if looking at the results is not enough, you can tell by simply reading his statements. Since the buck stops at the top, JJ’s lack of vision for what was visually required to bring TOS to the screen also garners a thumbs way down.

The trailer has some great effects and editing moments. Some great cinematography, but good production design? No.

128. sean - March 10, 2009

#118

Not only is ‘In A Mirror, Darkly’ a very MOR episode of Star Trek, it features some truly ham-filled acting and a Velociraptor Gorn that looked worse than the guy in the rubber suit with visible zipper! I know some fans seem to hold IAMD up as some kind of holy grail, but honestly it’s a rather painful thing for me to sit through. Bakula makes Shatner look restrained and subtle! :)

An episode of TV Trek and a mass-market movie are different and incompatible properties. Even Gene Rodenberry knew the TOS designs were NOT going to work on the Silver Screen and thus the major facelift to the Enterprise in TMP. Despite all the grumblings I see, these changes are honestly no more drastic than those were. And yes, fans were bitching back in ’79 about the TMP E and the redesigned sets, too. The TMP E is the same basic shape of the TOS E in the same way this E is.

Seriously guys, you’re telling me the engine room set in TMP bears *any* resemblance to the TOS set? You wouldn’t even know they were the same room. How about Klingons growing ridges? Vulcan gaining then losing multiple moons? The change in the E bridge between Star Trek IV and Star Trek V (a span of, what, 8 weeks)? Or the fact that Star Trek III completely throws out Christopher Pike and makes the Enterprise 20 years old instead of 40? Previous movies and TOS made plenty of gaffes and random design changes that didn’t really make sense, but we all seemed fine with them.

And # 112, your excuse for McCoy using a microphone is just silly. Of course people recognized it as a mic, and no, no one thought it ‘made sense’. 300 years from now they’ll be using mics to filter out hearbeats? ;) Come on, there were times the good old Doc was passing salt shakers over his patients! I understand not wanting to deride the TOS designs, but let’s not elevate them beyond what they really were, either. The brilliance of Wah Chang notwithstanding, there were plenty of occasions where TOS barely disguised common, everyday items as futuristic tools. Sharp viewers could pick them out far more easily than 95% of the movie audience will be capable of picking out bar code scanners that they’ve never seen before (and that don’t look like any bar code scanner *I* have ever seen in common use).

129. OneBuckFilms - March 10, 2009

Okay, I might be in the minority here, but I actually like the set designs I’ve seen so far.

It is obviously a Starship Bridge, the viewer at the front, Helm and Navigation are there, and it looks believable enough for technology from 300 years after I start pushing up plants.

130. Darrksan - March 10, 2009

an update of Flash Gordon ?????

No, that is Star Wars.

Scott Chambliss, did JJ tell you Star Trek was an update of Flash Gordon.
Damn JJ and his Star Wars love-affair.

131. Gary Seven of Nine - March 10, 2009

Why do the haters always forget that there were barcode scanners in TOS:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_C1Kpojs0YoY/Sao75cSeyEI/AAAAAAAAABA/rCLEW4idv_o/s1600/gw055-xenophobia.jpg

??????

Oh yeah, I know: because they’re looking for anything, big or small, to validate their prejudicial hatred for the new film.

132. CMX54 - March 10, 2009

Anthony, perhaps CS has stepped over the line, but also a warning to Dennis Bailey is deserved for his constant ad hominem attacks. Or does one have to be a gung-ho supporter of the ST09 film to get by with nary a warning?

133. Canon Schmanon - March 10, 2009

127. McCoy – I wish you wouldn’t present yourself as the last and only word in recognizing good design. Such a thing is subjective. You are merely expressing an opinion, with no facts to back your assertion.

134. Alex Rosenzweig - March 10, 2009

#26 – “And there is no windshield on the outside of the bridge of the new Enterprise!”

Right. Assuming the physical models of the ship currently on display are accurate, the idea of the main viewer also being a window has now been debunked.

I think the view of the hull is based mainly on the placement of the visual pickup feeding into the viewer.

#74 – “Wow, the canonistas are out tonight! I am debating whether or not I should read any more posts. People seem to be getting really overworked.”

I don’t know. I’m seeing arguments that are a lot more about aesthetics and design sensibility than canon.

#106 – “Just go and see the god damned movie and keep your mouths shut! Miserable, sad people.”

Yeah, I’m thinking that might be a little strong. Honestly, if you don’t want to read people debating ideas, a comments thread probably isn’t going to be the most enjoyable thing for you to frequent.

#114 – “And for those who wanted the TOS bridge on the big screen, just go find yourselves a bunch of young 20-somethings and watch that Mirror Universe ep of Enterprise and ask them how well it holds up.”

The 20-somethings I talked to liked it a lot. ;)

I still don’t think that bridge would have held up on a movie screen; there would still have to be design evolutions. But the basic design concept holds up like gangbusters.

#119 – “I respect their efforts. I appreciate their dedication to optimism.”

Agreed.

“I just would not have done the bridge the way they did. They could have more evenly tempered the old bridge with a new one.”

Also agreed. I’m biased, of course, but I think it would have been possible to revamp the original bridge to look exceedingly cool on the big screen without changing a single physical dimension of the sets. And, ironically, the set of “The Cage” would be much easier to update than the series version. It’d all be about the displays and control interfaces.

That said, though…

“The complete redesign is unrecognizable (and that’s not a good thing).”

See, I don’t think it’s unrecognizable. I can definitely see the lines of the original bridge in the new one. But what I think it is, is overdone. It’s *so* bright as to potentially be an uncomfortable working environment. It does look more “cool” than functional (though I’ll reserve judgment on that until I see it in the film). It seems too big, too busy, and just too much, even as a feature film set.

I don’t mind the transporter room, though, and the corridors are not bad. I’m really not sure about Engineering, though. It sounds like they may have, in the quest for making something identifiable to the general audience as an engine room, they may also have leaped beyond the believable and into the symbolic. But, again, it’s not fair to judge sight-unseen, so I’ll wait ’til I see it to comment fully.

135. Patrick the Admiral - March 10, 2009

Ladies and Gentlemen… the closed mindedness I sense here in this forum is making Gene Roddenberry spin in his orbital container. Really. The New E is beautiful, and frankly, to the casual observer, indistinguishable to other iterations of the same ship. The essence of Trek: the relationships… between Kirk & Spock & McCoy AND the Entperprise. She could look like M.J.’s original design, with a giant sphere instead of a saucer (which was truly ugly)… but it is how the characters relate to one another, including how Kirk relates to the Enterprise that is the heart and soul of this journey… Get over the aesthetics, enjoy the ride…

136. Crewman Darnell - March 10, 2009

95. RMBurnett

In all respect to the efforts of those who are bringing us this film, regrettably, I have to agree with every one of those points.

After reading the background story and comments from Mr Chambliss, the weird design aesthetic makes more sense; insofar as to why it all looks so “iTrek.” I just don’t get the wisdom behind hiring a production designer who from the get-go, expresses insecurity about taking on the job and (apparently) has to take a crash-course in familiarizing himself with an iconic product he’s about to represent. From my experience, that’s just not the way big accounts are assigned in the workplace.

Hollywood / the Film Industry is indeed a business. Despite my misgivings, I’m still glad that Star Trek is returning to the big screen. I’m hoping I come away from the theater this May, feeling good about being a Hollywood customer.

137. Gary Seven of Nine - March 10, 2009

@ #83. Unmutual – March 10, 2009

“sweet”
“super-cool” (twice!)

Great. A movie created by (and for) adults with the vocabulary and sensibilities of Eric Cartman.

>>>>>>>>>>

But doesn’t Cartman also say “Epic Fail”, as well. Oh well; I’ll take “epic fail” over some of the condescending and pretentious ramblings of the self-anointed.

@ #119: great post on a different levels.

Personally, I’m with Otter and Turbolift, but tact and eloquence always make these debates more palatable.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

114. Captain Otter – March 10, 2009

I dig the new bridge. I think it is clean, imaginative, and is a fitting evolution of the TOS concept.

And yes, I’m posting from a Mac.

And for those who wanted the TOS bridge on the big screen, just go find yourselves a bunch of young 20-somethings and watch that Mirror Universe ep of Enterprise and ask them how well it holds up.

Bet you guys think The Andy Griffith Show could be re-run in prime-time for big ratings too.

115. Turbolift – March 10, 2009

It’s no wonder Trek fans carry such a universally accepted stereotype. Often it’s really not deserved, but it’s true enough to perpetuate itself. It’s almost like folks that don’t want everyone else to like their favorite band, and if it does happen to get popular then the band obviously sold out…it’s no longer their own private entity. I say, if you don’t like the designs, the actors, the story, the trailers, Kirk’s eye color or whatever other mundane reason you give for being oh so very unhappy…then don’t go see the movie. It’s really that simple. This movie is going to do very well, especially for a Trek movie…even if you don’t personally go. Those of us who expect to enjoy the film will likely go once again in your place. I’m happy to share my appreciation for Trek with folks who never cared about it, and come May 8th, many new fans will be born. I for one, am excited about that.

138. RMBurnett - March 10, 2009

Folks,

I want to end my comments tonight on this thread with this:

I’m extremely excited about the new movie. I think seeing TREK in a new light, with an extremely engaged creative team, is exactly what the franchise needs. Reading the COUNTDOWN comics…casting Spock in the role of Jor El, is really kinda’ brilliant. I even LOVE the “Alternate Universe/Reboot” conceit. It’s very Trek. I think of this movie as actually SEEING the 20 years of alternate reality we DIDN’T see in YESTERDAY’S ENTERPRISE…but which DID, in fact, EXIST. Hell-looooo SELA….!

So…I think the new Trek film, after having actually seen twenty minutes, will actually be pretty great. I like Pine. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Bruce Greenwood. I’m sure the music is terrific…and the visual effects…especially during the “Destruction of Vulcan” sequence…are some of the best ever committed to film. I’m not kidding. The visual effects in this film are OFF THE HOOK. STAR TREK is back…in a big way. An entirely new generation of fans will FLOCK to the franchise. And…because of the alternate universe nature of the story…CANON still holds…and I really dig that. Because…well…our PRIME Universe can still continue. Kurtzman and Orsi…and Abrams did a frakking BRILLIANT thing when they came up with this conceit to reboot the franchise. In fact…I’ll dare say…even PARAMOUNT itself doesn’t get just how brilliant what they choose to do is…It’s INCREDIBLE from a story standpoint the studio let them do it (of course…the studio STILL doesn’t understand what they did…I’m sure they’re still going…HUH? But trust me…what they’ve done is one of the most brilliant storytelling slight-of-hands EVER slipped past a studios’s executive team…) Really, what Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman were allowed to do is nothing short of a DIVINE intervention by Q for the franchise.

I can honestly say…the new Star Trek creative team SAVED STAR TREK. Again.

But that being said…THE SINGLE MOST DISAPPOINTING element of the entire production, for me…is the production design. Even STAR TREK III…which…let’s face it…looks like it cost about ten bucks…with it’s HORRIBLE Genesis Planet set…and that AWFUL Klingon Targ…gave us SPACE DOCK…and the Excelsior (which was SUPPOSED to look ugly…) and the Grissom (an excellent, smaller science vessel) AND…perhaps the greatest addition to the Trek Pantheon…the KLINGON bird of prey (which, btw, was SUPPOSED to be Romulan…)…well…the Trek design asthetic FLOURISHED here…because the dudes at the VERY SAME VISUAL EFFECTS FACILITY…are from a different time…where considered design elements TRUMPED the cool factor. Today…well…it’s different. Two years ago, if you ever told me I’d believe GIANT ROBOTS would fight on the freeways of LA…it’d say you were CRAZY…but TRANSFORMERS…whatever you think of the film…HAS THE BEST VISUAL EFFECTS EVER CONCEIVED. Those frakkin’ robots…well…they look ABOSOLUTELY real. With our new Trek…the design is more about being COOL…cool for TODAY…then being a well thought out extrapolation of what the Trek future MIGHT look like. I DO NOT BELIEVE the bridge. But I WANT to believe it…with all of my heart I do. But…I just don’t. MINORITY REPORT’s PRE-CRIME headquarters is where they should’ve gone with the bridge…but they didn’t.

We live a different time. Real criticism no longer exists…and if you can’t find something out in five minutes on Wikipedia…then, well…WHY NOT JUST MAKE IT LOOK COOL! To quote Dick Jones in ROBOCOP…”WHO CARES IF IT WORKS OR NOT…!?!?”

But this new Trek film? As much as I do like Pine…Greenwood…and Urban (who frakkin’ RULES), I just can’t get behind the production design. It’s…ALREADY DATED…and the movie hasn’t even come out yet. It just doesn’t work. It’s the only element of the film which…two years from now…MARK MY WORDS…J.J. Abrams himself will RE-DESIGN. I’m willing to put down a hundred bucks down…RIGHT NOW…when he directs the sequel…and he will…because this movie will be THE MOST SUCCESSFUL STAR TREK MOVIE IN HISTORY…that the production design will be the first thing he looks back on and decides to “improve.”

139. Alex Rosenzweig - March 10, 2009

#128 – “Not only is ‘In A Mirror, Darkly’ a very MOR episode of Star Trek, it features some truly ham-filled acting and a Velociraptor Gorn that looked worse than the guy in the rubber suit with visible zipper! I know some fans seem to hold IAMD up as some kind of holy grail, but honestly it’s a rather painful thing for me to sit through. Bakula makes Shatner look restrained and subtle! :) ”

I actually completely agree that the acting in IaMD was very hammy and over-the-top…and I think it was utterly deliberate. The sort of really exaggerated performances they gave were a great way to underscore the freaky, twisted world of the Mirror Universe, just as they would have been completely awful in a “regular” episode.

“An episode of TV Trek and a mass-market movie are different and incompatible properties.”

Certainly different. Incompatible. That I don’t know.

“Even Gene Rodenberry knew the TOS designs were NOT going to work on the Silver Screen and thus the major facelift to the Enterprise in TMP.”

Even the TOS designs would need a facelift to work on the big screen. But it didn’t need to be as radical as even TMP did it, though anyone looking for an exact reproduction of the original sets on a movie screen would still probably be disappointed.

“Seriously guys, you’re telling me the engine room set in TMP bears *any* resemblance to the TOS set? You wouldn’t even know they were the same room.”

That I’ll give you. And, indeed, there’s a pretty substantial number of fans who are quite convinced that they’re *not* the same room, and never were. :)

“The change in the E bridge between Star Trek IV and Star Trek V (a span of, what, 8 weeks)?”

6 months, actually, counting the shakedown cruise and the repair and refit time. But even then, the change in bridges was pretty major, which is why they invented the idea of the modular, swappable bridge unit.

“Or the fact that Star Trek III completely throws out Christopher Pike and makes the Enterprise 20 years old instead of 40? Previous movies and TOS made plenty of gaffes and random design changes that didn’t really make sense, but we all seemed fine with them.”

No, we weren’t “fine with them”. We just concocted a whole bunch of in-universe explanations, and/or we teased the writers and producers, who all took it in good part, because they and we all shared the affection for the world of Star Trek.

“I understand not wanting to deride the TOS designs, but let’s not elevate them beyond what they really were, either. The brilliance of Wah Chang notwithstanding, there were plenty of occasions where TOS barely disguised common, everyday items as futuristic tools.”

To be fair, that’s all perfectly true. TOS’s designers, like many TV production designers, became highly adept at using everyday items creatively. It was, and is, a way of keeping a production going, and that’s something for which we can salute them, in whatever decade they’ve worked. :)

140. Shunnabunich - March 10, 2009

I agree with most of what the guy said, except the word “tactful”. Oops. That part must’ve been left on the cutting room floor.

I have no problem with the set seeming more “futuristic”, but to call this an “Apple Store bridge” or “the iBridge” is an insult to Apple’s design team. Filled with unnecessary, counterintuitive and counterproductive elements, and so horrendously busy that it constantly threatens to upstage THE ACTORS! I think they could’ve removed half the useless crud on the set (mainly the etched glass panes and lights shining in people’s faces), and it would’ve looked a lot better, and just as futuristic and suitable for the big screen. This movie’d better have a mindbogglingly incredible story to distract us from some of the sets. :)

141. Enc - March 11, 2009

29
you got that right

142. Lendorien - March 11, 2009

It amazes me how seriously some people take things. We’ve got people treating any deviation from the TOS like the Vatican would if someone tried to add Dianetics to the Biblical books of the Canon.

Seriously, people need to get a grip, take a few long breaths and just sit back and try to enjoy the entertainment. And if it bothers you that much, the three original series are on DVD. Go watch them. This movie will clearly not suit you.

143. robot - March 11, 2009

#114 “And for those who wanted the TOS bridge on the big screen, just go find yourselves a bunch of young 20-somethings and watch that Mirror Universe ep of Enterprise and ask them how well it holds up.”

Couldn’t agree more. I see no point in defending the old TOS bridge. It looks, shall we say, LAME aka cheesy by todays standards

144. Iowagirl - March 11, 2009

- ..All of that stuff is so sweet to look at now and it was definitely of its moment… –

And it had the impact, power, and persuasiveness to become one of the most influential sci-fi shows ever, being still of “its moment” more than 40 years later, despite its low budget, and its cardboard designs – or maybe just because of it?

145. darrksan - March 11, 2009

The Thing is for myself what I have seen and hear about ST:09 seems messy and just sad. The Bridge and other sets are not really a re-design of TOS, they are like all of Star Trek & Star Wars designs mixed-up in a big gross stew. The new Enterprise exterior is like the deformed brother of the NCC-1701-A from ST:5. It is all just so junky to me. Now, I do not like the re-do of BSG, but the re-designs are great and are true re-designs of the classic designs.
I have seen fan re-imagined of the enterprise which are way better and more epic then ST: 09 designs.
Then, I hear JJ and his crew talking like this:
STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, Flash Gordon, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, star trek, STAR WARS, STAR WARS,STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS, STAR WARS and so on….
Then after all that I see the trailers and the dialog is more worst then a Ed wood film. When did Kirk & Spock become like Neo. also When did Pike & Sarek become bad versions of Morpheus.
The final thing is that the story maybe good, but I do not wants a good story handed to me on poo and this film is start smell to me.

P.S.
I seen Great “fan re-imagined” of the TOS NCC-1701 exterior, but where are the “fan re-imagined” of the TOS Bridge, Phasers, Tricorders and so on…
I would love to see some “fan re-imagined” fan films.

146. Colin - March 11, 2009

I don’t intend to see the film. I recognize this film is for the male demographic 18-34. This is where the money is.

I am a 36 year old male who grew up on the original Star Trek. I accepted the technology in the shows. Why did I accept it? Because the stories were about characters, not technology.

As for the design elements, I don’t like them. There is a concept called context. It’s used in archaeology. An example of context is finding a piece of pottery from the 9th century BCE in a gathering of objects from the same era.. An example of a object out of context is if the pottery shard is mixed with objects of a later or earlier era, or if the pottery shard is removed from its place of origin.

The problem with the design is that elements are out of context. The uniforms worked on a 1960’s designed bridge. They don’t work on a 2000’s designed bridge. And that saucer? Probert nailed it on the head when he redesigned the saucer.

Now, I have a dare. How many of you would like to work in an environment like the bridge for eight hours a day? What would you feel like after working on that bridge? Would you be happy or sad? Would you be relaxed or tense?

147. Chris Pike - March 11, 2009

144. Iowagirl – March 11, 2009
– ..All of that stuff is so sweet to look at now and it was definitely of its moment… –

And it had the impact, power, and persuasiveness to become one of the most influential sci-fi shows ever, being still of “its moment” more than 40 years later, despite its low budget, and its cardboard designs – or maybe just because of it?

Absolutely – are these new designs going to have that same impact as MJ’s years and years on….without being too negative, I think many would admit “unlikely”! and I can’t help feeling overall…the design work could have been so, so, much better

148. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2009

138. RMBurnett: “Really, what Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman were allowed to do is nothing short of a DIVINE intervention by Q for the franchise.”

“I can honestly say…the new Star Trek creative team SAVED STAR TREK. Again.”

“But that being said…THE SINGLE MOST DISAPPOINTING element of the entire production, for me…is the production design.”

“…when he directs the sequel…and he will…because this movie will be THE MOST SUCCESSFUL STAR TREK MOVIE IN HISTORY…that the production design will be the first thing he looks back on and decides to “improve.””

I like the way you think / write!! Major agreement!!

Let’s just hope that the Kelvin bridge pays a lot more homage to TOS!!!

149. Jeff C - March 11, 2009

Hehehehe… Is it possible that people are getting MORE agitated as the film draws closer and closer? Similar to Time, stalking Captain Picard like a predator…

Some fans are going to lose their minds between now and when the film opens–bit by bit, their personal universes are being disassembled infront of them and cast aside. The Universe they believed in so fervently turns out to just be a Franchise after all, that can be remade however and as whatever Paramount wants…and what they want is a cash cow.

I am not impressed with the concept designs I have seen so far from this film, honestly. And other designers I know ( at least one of them worked on Lord of the Rings) all agree that the new Enterprise has some serious problems as a cohesive design, the biggest being the massive front ends to the engines–they have visually the same mass as the Secondary Hull and are way too close to each other…

The interiors of the ship aren’t winning any prizes either…Visually Cluttered is the term bandied about a lot.

Someone mentioned earlier about how the design doesn’t feel like Star Trek–that there has definitely been a design style to the previous shows and films (that had nothing to do with Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers, by the way)–a sense of cohesion and order between all the different shows.

But, then again, this ISN’T a Star Trek movie. At least not like anything that has come before it.

And that is what Abrams and company are going for. They are seemingly embarrassed by Star Trek as it existed. They don’t seem to like the Design sense of the old show, the events that formed the characters, the technical aspects of the shows–all the things that built up to make it come together. And they are embarrassed and constantly apologizing for the core fanbase that has supported Star Trek–to the point of going out of their way to say that they didn’t make the film for those fans–they are going for the mythic “General Audience”.

They like the name Star Trek. They like the idea of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. They like parts of various versions of the Enterprise. They like time travel. They like space battles and stunts. And lots and lots of track lighting on their bridge.

Like I say, this is fascinating to watch. When this movie comes out, I am all excited to hear what what people’s reactions will be. It has been ten years since this many fans have been breathless with anticipation for a franchise film…and we all remember how well The Phantom Menace turned out! Will it live up to the hype?

And the Bickering Adventure is just beginning…

150. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2009

146. Colin: “How many of you would like to work in an environment like the bridge for eight hours a day? What would you feel like after working on that bridge? Would you be happy or sad? Would you be relaxed or tense?”

Dude! No kidding! I would be going postal if I had to work on that bridge!!!

In that first picture we saw of Sulu on the bridge, he looks totally FRIED… eye bags and acne breaking out… probably because of that environment!

151. cinemadeus - March 11, 2009

Since when does the production design remind anybody of anything STAR WARS?
Okay, maybe San Francisco looks a little like Coruscant…

Although I’m not overly optimistic about ST:09, I have no problem with the designs so far.
Just two words: Art. Book. ;-)

145 darrksan:
“When did Kirk & Spock become like Neo. also When did Pike & Sarek become bad versions of Morpheus.”

Congratulations! You hit the mark. Purely accidenta thoughl. I wouldn’t call Pike & Sarek bad versions of Morpheus but maybe reading Joseph Campbells works would answer your questions. Then we can talk about the structure of classic mythology and the way it affects Hollywood storytelling… two words once again: Hero. Instructor.

152. Crewman Darnell - March 11, 2009

143:

In all fairness, I have yet to read a comment from anybody who hoped/expected to see TOS bridge in this film. Something more than vaguely resembling TOS bridge is a totally different school of thought…

153. cinemadeus - March 11, 2009

Damn copy and paste… Must say “accidental though.”

154. Geoffers - March 11, 2009

I like the new clean look. I don’t think anyone pulled and picked appart the look of the bridge in each “TOS” based film… and that changed quite radicaly between movies.

I guess all works of design are open to interpretation.. some will like, some will hate.. you simply can’t please everyone… for me, I like the clean crisp look.. but that’s just me.. I am sure for every one who does like, there is one who doesn’t, and vice versa.

155. Ralph - March 11, 2009

I think we’re missing something here.

You know how ships have a “main bridge,” and a “battle bridge,” or a “what have you bridge”?

Well, I think this is just the “price check bridge,”…or maybe the “tracking inventory bridge.”

Seriously, I hope this movie turns out well; I really want it to do so. But I can’t say I trust these guys to deliver a compelling story coupled with believable production value if they can’t sweat the details (or the big stuff) in design.

Design is about aesthetics and, thus, highly subjective.
But in my subjective opinion, this really is “A Bridge TOO FAR.”

156. Devon - March 11, 2009

“Seriously, I hope this movie turns out well; I really want it to do so. But I can’t say I trust these guys to deliver a compelling story coupled with believable production value if they can’t sweat the details (or the big stuff) in design.”

Why not? Fans feel it worked for TOS and those lackluster production values. You are equating two different things.

157. Darrksan - March 11, 2009

151. cinemadeus – March 11, 2009
Congratulations! You hit the mark. Purely accidenta thoughl. I wouldn’t call Pike & Sarek bad versions of Morpheus but maybe reading Joseph Campbells works would answer your questions. Then we can talk about the structure of classic mythology and the way it affects Hollywood storytelling… two words once again: Hero. Instructor.

cinemadeus,
I know about Joseph Campbell’s work and how hollywood (and books like harry potter) is using it today to build stories. News Flash: most films which use the Joseph Campbell’s Hero Arc to build stories are bad and also suck. Joseph Campbell influence is one of the worst things to happen to the writing arts. I am sick of the Chosen One this, Chosen One that- bull. TOS or the first six ST films did not need Joseph Campbell to become great, Nor did the classic mythologies which Joseph Campbell based his work on.

when it comes to Joseph Campbell and his influence on films,
I have four bad words:
“The Star Wars Prequels”

158. Mr Lirpa - March 11, 2009

For the record, I like the new bridge design, to me it’s hardly changed at all, (in fact, what the heck were they paying the guy for?) the layout is virtually identical, to all other E bridges apart from a few partitions and the shape seemingly an oval and not the TOS circle.

And for the sake of balance, as much as I love the TOS bridge it was hardly perfect. it always bugged me that the buttons on the consoles were so painfully obviously there for decoration (and seemed not to have any coherent labelling, just look down at your Keyboard) there were also the blinking lights on every panel which did nothing but blink, also the fact that you could see ripples in the raised data screens, which it seems were made from paper and lit from the rear.

I could keep going but what’s the point… well maybe the point is that even though the original set was imperfect I love it and still do, so I for one am going to watch this new version of Trek with an open mind and enjoy it for what it is, a second chance for a fantastic franchise and I’m not going to obsess on tiny unimportant details like where a single prop has been sourced from or that McCoy’s hair is parted on the wrong side!
Go watch the film, if you like it great, if you don’t never mind, there’s always the 40 years of history to plough through.

try to remember IDIC please and just chill out!

159. Ralph - March 11, 2009

@ 156

TOS’ focus was never on visuals, but on story telling.

The crew at the helm of the new movie have made it clear that their goal was on both story telling AND on visuals.

I see things that worry me that they’ve done a less-than-stellar job on visuals. Therefore, I question whether they will be able to deliver on the story telling (which is WAY more important to me).

It’s fun debating the ins and outs of the minutia in the new film. But at the end of the day, I think we all just want a great story that’s true to Trek.
(Now let’s debate on what “true to Trek” is :-)

160. TOY - March 11, 2009

It’s good that even with differing views of the new bridge among many other aspects of this movie, most are going to be seeing this film hoping for the best. I know I am! I can hardly wait. I really can’t tell if I like the bridge yet, I noticed something when seeing some motion shots on the trailer, I think when the scene opens up on a cinema screen there will be distinct details that will be prominent enough to carry a huge screen or picked out in HD but not deter from the characters. Reading the article makes more sense now as I doubt it’s just about thier own take but how immersive each shot will be. Well here’s hoping.

161. old - March 11, 2009

ey people, the tos design and especially the colour theme is not pretty. i’m so happy they didnt use it in any way in the new interior design.

And to all the people who think you can use a 60′ design seriously in a movie today, please wake up.

i’m a really big trekkie and can’t take the TOS design seriously when i watch the old episodes because is looks so freaky and funny.

162. Multitrek - March 11, 2009

In the 23rd century, 21st century barcode scanners are recycled as new Starship equipment. In the last few years we have learned how to recycle. In the future, recycling becomes art in itself. Everything is recycled. Starships are 90% recycled material.

Believability has been restored. Everyone can see the movie. All is well. Barcode scanners have been assimilated to canon. End of scandal.

163. Darrksan - March 11, 2009

My thought of this Film from what I have seen is:

Bad Designs like all of Star Trek & Star Wars designs mixed-up in a big gross stew. The new Enterprise exterior is like the deformed brother of the NCC-1701-A from ST:5.

Bad Casting.

Bad Dialog which sounds like the actors are reading a D & D rule book.
Dungeons and Dragons game TV commercial early 1980s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wGlOwn1pM

Bad ideas like making a Star Trek for non-fans and not for trek fans. also holding up Star Wars like it is god like and so on….

I have more but it is late….

164. Frank - March 11, 2009

I still don’t like the bridge at all. Reminds me of the cosmetic department in Macy’s. Too big, too bright, too white and too ‘plastic’ looking for my taste. What amazes me is just how well the original bridge still holds up today. But, that’s just me…

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/frankpalmer/468569022_9b82f6853e_o.jpg

165. AJ - March 11, 2009

146:

Colin:

“Now, I have a dare. How many of you would like to work in an environment like the bridge for eight hours a day? What would you feel like after working on that bridge? Would you be happy or sad? Would you be relaxed or tense?:

That’s my major take-away from the new ship design. Those bright lights are like restaurant heat-lamps, and it’s generally known that lighting of that type in a workspace increases tension and reduces productivity. That was the rationale behind the dated “Hilton Hotel” bridge on TNG, where earthtones and lighting were more natural and calming. Here, even the corridors have rows of super-bright lights.

I’d hate to be the lightbulb guy on this ship.

166. Mr Lirpa - March 11, 2009

@163 “Bad ideas like making a Star Trek for non-fans and not for trek fans.”

Elitist Bull crap! I want EVERYBODY to come and see this film and become a Star Trek Fan or aren’t they allowed to? You do realise that before TOS there was no such thing as a “star trek fan” and that TNG brought in a whole “new Generation” of ST fans, or don’t they count as “real” Fans?

167. Paul - March 11, 2009

Problem of these guys is they have to cater to people with no imagination. Today’s audience needs everything spelled out carefully, preferrably twice and very slowly so they can understand it.

So, your average Joe thinks that touchscreens + lots of lighted panels = future. That means designers need to use touchscreens and lots of lighted panels, which is today’s average Joe’s idea of future, -not- the future itself. It’s not future, it’s the early 21th century.

Fashion trends tend to return. Who’s to say that in mid-23rd century, art deco won’t be considered fashionable? Or raygun gothic? Or maybe pseudo-victorian style, with lots of polished wood, brass pipes, ivory buttons and blue velvet wall dressing?

But well, designers have to cater to average Joe, which means we’re going to get 21th century “future” instead of anything imaginative.

168. Adam Cohen - March 11, 2009

#164 I agree about the old bridge in a broad sense of design- it has simple lines, it’s an easy space to understand and it feels “important.” The new bridge is too gaudy for my taste- it’s as if the original bridge was covered in design elements that obscure its former simplicity. In most areas, we see design moving towards a cleaner overall look. The new bridge bucks that trend and instead looks incoherent.

However, this will affect my opinion of the movie in no way whatsoever.

169. Paul B. - March 11, 2009

165. AJ – March 11, 2009
That’s my major take-away from the new ship design. Those bright lights are like restaurant heat-lamps, and it’s generally known that lighting of that type in a workspace increases tension and reduces productivity. That was the rationale behind the dated “Hilton Hotel” bridge on TNG, where earthtones and lighting were more natural and calming. Here, even the corridors have rows of super-bright lights.
I’d hate to be the lightbulb guy on this ship.
***************

Yeah, it looks like J.J. & co. took Roddenberry’s vision of humanity’s bright future just a little too literally.

I’m excited about the film, but the production design is a major put-off. Aside from having the central seat and helm/navigation station, this bridge doesn’t look like ANY Enterprise bridge. (Honestly, folks, if you saw this same design without the Trek costumes, you wouldn’t think “Enterprise bridge” at all.)

Just like the 1701-SD “hotel” bridge (well described, AJ), THIS bridge looks horrible now and (bets, anyone?) it’s going to be laughably “cheesy” within a couple of years. (I never liked the TNG bridge; to me, it looked like someone’s idea of multimedia family room. Barf!)

And let’s not even get started on the horrible reflections we’ve already seen on the viewscreen–uh, viewwindow–er, window….

And those horrible, insanely reflective, way-too-bridge corridors! Did they even LOOK at TOS for ideas? Even the doors have that interlocked shape that TNG used (for cargo bay doors and such).

And what are you people talking about when you say the Kelvin bridge looks TOS? Huh?! Where? What? Huh?!? I don’t see anything resembling TOS there except, maybe, the dimmer lighting.

170. cinemadeus - March 11, 2009

@ Darrksan:
Witty and literate as you are, why don’t you explain how you imagine a new movie to be?
I’m not saying that everything based upon Campbells hero arc is gold but maybe you can frame a new system for the commercial fiction film which is more effective because I don’t think that a meditative Kubrick/2001 or overly philosophic Andrei Tarkowsky kind of Trek film would make it over opening weekend.

You say that the first six feature films do not base upon Campbell? Analyse them again…

This is also not the Star Trek I would do if I was in charge and some people on this site know that I’m not overly enthusiastic, too, but I won’t judge it from a few lines in the trailer.

Before May 7, midnight in central european standard time I won’t make a fool of myself by saying “It sucks” or “It’s great”. Wait till you’ve seen the whole thing and hope that the folks who pulled the strings had not only dollar bills in their minds…

171. Ralph F - March 11, 2009

Still no fan of the new 1701, meaning the overall design of the ship. My initial reaction was disappointment when I first saw it here on trekmovie and, well, that’s still my reaction. I’m hoping to like it when I see it in action. “Young minds, fresh ideas” and all that.

I haven’t really looked at the interior sets enough to have an opinion. The only thing that immediately comes to mind is how bright the bridge looks. My first thought was the TV room from “Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” when I saw it but, again, I haven’t seen it except in fleeting imagery in the trailer.

One man’s opinion, that’s all.

172. BK613 - March 11, 2009

120
“Besides, am I the only Trek fan who thinks TOS is defined more by the characters and storytelling than the damn sets? Yeah they were cool, but come on.”

No of course not. But to get the whole TOS package, you need great characters, great stories, AND a well thought out world for them to inhabit. I just haven’t been sensing that from what I have seen.

173. Sam Belil - March 11, 2009

Very multi-media??? Are you kidding me???? This is supposed to the bridge of a starship, NOT an iPod/iPhone on steroids. And don’t even get me going on the barcode scanners — this is NOT original thinking, this is pure laziness. I would have respected the designers more if in place of those stupid bar code scanners — they used an updated version of the “gooseneck” viewers that we saw in “The Cage”/”The Menagerie”.
Bells and whistles will not make this movie successful, GREAT STORY TELLINg will — not sure this movie will feature the latter!

174. Robert H. - March 11, 2009

Don’t forget, on both the original and second pilot, the Enterprise also had something like barcode scanners on its stations, including the captain’s chair.

175. Star Trackie - March 11, 2009

“One of the problems with the old show is that they had no budget and everything is made out of cardboard; it felt like a soapbox derby in outer space. All of that stuff is so sweet to look at now and it was definitely of its moment. Well, we wanted this one to be our moment, just brought further into the 21st century.”

I love the new designs…however…

1. Cardboard and plywood are two different things. If you’re going to talk about what the bridge was made of, get it right. I’ll be first in line to comment about the stryofoam rocks but the bridge is not the best place to start if you want to infer that the original series was “cheap” looking.

2. ” Well, we wanted this one to be our moment, just brought further into the 21st century.” two words. Barcode scanners.

Again, aside from the glass partitions, I REALLY like the new bridge. I just don’t like the pot calling the kettle black.

176. Tak Kovacs - March 11, 2009

I used to love watching TOS in syndication when I was a kid. As I grew older, my science fiction tastes expanded and, even though I greatly appreciated learning about the concepts explored in TOS, I never really cared about anything Star Trek.

Well, based on what I see going on with this new film, I am now a new fan to something that, for a variety of reasons, I should have been a fan of all along. There is a reason for that and I don’t think it is something that these filmmakers have done by accident. I am just one person that represents a much larger science fiction audience. I’m here. I have not been to a Star Trek film since TWOK. I absolutely can not wait for May 8.

I can’t really explain it, but I’m sure that I’m not a unique science fiction / film fan. Star Trek is about to be discovered and embraced by a much wider group of people. I can see how this may be disconcerting to lifelong fans. That makes sense.

I think that the new film just offers an open door into something that, for as good as it might be, has become a bit marginalized by its hardcore mythology and fandom. I think what a bunch of you are battling with is the opening of that door.

As for design, I’m thinking the only thing worth picking on is the bridge design. The poster that suggested that it should have incorporated more of the ideas presented in Minority Report has a good suggestion.

One quick still of a full set isn’t really the fairest way to judge a design for film. Sure, as viewers, we want to believe that a ship bridge is functional as a real place and working environment, but it’s important to remember that the entire set is probably a rare thing to be seen in a fully edited, moving film. In the sliding scale of compositions and style vs. functionality, it would appear that the filmmakers skewed toward the former. This may prove to be a big mistake, but it may make for some nicely lit compositions. I think a balance is necessary. We’ll see how it looks in the finished product.

Enjoy the film. A new generation of kids are about to become Star Trek fans.

177. protogenes - March 11, 2009

Finally, I can place a face to the crime.

The designers of this new film are hacks, and seem to have no respect for the look of TOS.

Thumbs down from this viewer.

178. danno - March 11, 2009

169,on closer inspection the kelvin has a death star feel to it

179. BaronByng - March 11, 2009

Since starships aren’t real, and we have no idea how technology will advance in the next 256 years (or regress, most likely), I think it’s a moot point to argue about what is or isn’t “realistic” on Chambliss’ production designs. However, we can take what we know about today’s world and extrapolate it.

As I mentioned in a post upthread, the designers have a hard row to hoe here. They have to keep it recognizable without being slavishly retro, and futuristic from a 2009 perspective without going too far beyond what we saw in TOS. I think that largely, they’ve succeeded. To me, it seems plausible, and while I agree that it could have been a tad more streamlined, it feels “right” for this production.

I also like the new uniform fabric. I think flat primary colours would look cartoonish; this gives them texture and depth (and it looks more breathable!) Someone on another thread mentioned that the USMC emblem is subtly placed into modern digital camouflage patterns, so it’s not entirely without precedent.

Yes, there is an elegance to the original TOS bridge design, but that exact set, is relatively cramped, with a low ceiling, and the colour scheme was designed to sell colour TVs. That’s the whole reason that it, and the re-created bridges for New Voyages, were/are made on modular “pie wedges” to allow filming from different angles.

JJ Abrams is going for a more widescreen, cinematic approach, and hence we have a bigger bridge set; something that a Steadicam operator can move around in. There’s a practical element to the lights everywhere, in that it helps to virtually eliminate any harsh shadows. It looks important and the nerve center of the ship (with extra stations, etc.). For the purposes of an epic space adventure that likely isn’t going to delve into technobabble too deeply (thankfully), it looks mighty fine.

180. Duncan MacLeod - March 11, 2009

61.

What is all this talk about the “SAME ACADEMY CLASS”. I am sorry, but when i was in college …

1. There were people of varying ages in my classes from teens to 40’s
2. i had classes and interacted with people from MULTIPLE “Classes”.
3. There is nothing in CANON (WHAT, CANNON???) that says when they attended SFA, or how old they were, etc. etc. etc.

181. falcon - March 11, 2009

Wow. There’s obviously a lot of “passion” in this thread regarding this subject. I won’t address that. Rather, a couple of points:

1) The bridge set in “In A Mirror, Darkly” did, in fact, hold up pretty well – but you could still see it for what it was. It was a 21st-century recreation of a 1960s set, albeit with flat-screen monitors in place of the eggcrates with Christmas tree lights. Some of the upper monitors, though, were composited in, and not practical. One could make the argument that the set could be redesigned to be more “modern” and “functional,” but while there were some design elements that were ahead of their time (the curved layout of the controls, for example – the first time I think I had ever heard the term “ergonomic”), I do not truly believe that such a set could hold up well on the big screen.

2) The construction of the sets and costumes were constrained by the budgets of the day. Matt Jeffries, Pato Guzman, Wah Chang, and Bill Theiss (to name a few) had very few dollars, but lots of imagination. If you look at Jeffries’ designs from just prior to filming the pilot, you’ll see some of the design sensibility that has made its way into the new movie. And Jeffries’ design (or re-design) of the bridge for “Phase II” (not to be confused with James Cawley’s project) almost make the bridge in the new movie look tame. Again, though, there were design sensibilities of the day at work (in this case, the late 1970s). So take that for what it’s worth. But at any rate, the designs would have been unwieldy at best on the big screen.

3) Just as there is a design aesthetic at work on the new movie, one must also consider functionality. Who’s to say that tomorrow’s workstations won’t more closely resemble those on the bridge? The area where I work has three monitors, a computer keyboard, a Wacom tablet, and an audio monitoring device called the “Big Knob” that is, at best, anachronistic in that environment. Everything else is done either with touchscreen commands or the pen/keyboard combination. (And at some point, a fourth, larger monitor, will be added above the current three. Sound familiar?) To add, the Department of Defense and the Department of the Navy considered Jeffries’ original bridge design for new command and control centers they were considering, and the circular design has been adapted for other uses, from conference rooms to transportation control centers. So, while it was designed for a 1960s audience viewing it “in Living Color,” it was also functional – and I believe the new bridge will be discovered to be functional as well, once we see the entire movie and have the proper context.

4) While passion can be commendable, IT’S JUST A MOVIE! I’m going to see it on May 8 (might be my first midnight showing), and possibly many more times after that, and then buy the DVD, and the Blu-Ray, and yadda, yadda, yadda. Let’s face it, I’m a Trek fan. If the story is as kick-a$$ as it appears to be (and I’m going to consign canon to a dark recess of my mind for now), it’ll be worth multiple viewings, even if the designs aren’t necessarily “Trek.” So there.

182. Johnny Ice - March 11, 2009

I think Chambliss did a awesome work.
I like the bridge and the transporter room.
p.s. new Enterprise is overall better design then old outdated original Enterprise.

183. LordCheeseCakeBreath - March 11, 2009

Does anyone know what the barcode scanners are for? Could they actually be projector that shine on the view screen?

184. Paulaner - March 11, 2009

Compared to the ugly bridge of the Enterprise-E, and the gritty claustrophobic submarine-like bridge of Archer’s Enterprise, this new design is pretty cool, in my opinion.

185. falcon - March 11, 2009

@179 – Well said, Baron.

Let’s look at our expectations for the 21st Century through the eyes of where we were in the 1960s. Flying cars? Videophones? (Okay, we have that, sort of.) Dinner in a pill?

I think the futurists of the 1960s failed to take into account a couple of things – politics and human nature. Without those driving everything, sure, we could probably have flying cars and roast beef pills right now.

And given the way politics and human nature work, it’s entirely possible that the tech of 256 years from now (give or take a decade) will not even be as advanced as what’s portrayed in the new movie. Warp drive may never happen. The transporter may or may not ever be developed. Even particle weapons or directed energy weapons may prove unfeasable (regardless of how much money is being spent on their development now). But here’s something to chew on – all these things might not have even been considered for development had it not been for a particular science-fiction/action-adventure TV program that ran from 1966 to 1969.

Would we even have cellphones, touch-screen computers (heck, even computers), or the Internet without Star Trek?

Also, Baron, I like the use of “hard row to hoe” – you may be the only person I’ve seen post on a forum such as this that got the analogy right (as well as the spelling).

186. Danpaine - March 11, 2009

I think it’s a fine article and dig and understand the guy’s vision. I just have a bit of a problem with the term “sexy” in terms of the bridge. ‘Hot,’ ‘MTV,’ ‘sexy,’ is what I’m getting, which is an immediate turnoff.

187. Star Trackie - March 11, 2009

#158 “And for the sake of balance, as much as I love the TOS bridge it was hardly perfect. it always bugged me that the buttons on the consoles were so painfully obviously there for decoration (and seemed not to have any coherent labelling, just look down at your Keyboard)”

Why is it so hard for people to think out of the box? Perhaps the bridge buttons were color coded and clearly molded in different shapes and sizes for functions specific to that station, therefore no labels are neccesary. IN fact, knowing Jefferies attention to practical functionality, I wouldn’t be surprised if it WERE by design and created for functionalit and not “decoration”. (and by the way some of Spocks buttons were labeled at his science station.) Also I would think the crew were trained to be able to work those controls with their eye’s closed at the academy…so again, why lable it? A good typist need not have the letter Q on the key to know where it is on the keyboard.

The TOS bridge controls were practical, functional and colorful. The off hand remark and opinion by many that these controls were just “jelly beans stuck on plastic” is way off base and simply reflects a mindset that can’t think out of the box.

188. Locke for President - March 11, 2009

This is a $150 million movie made in 2008, not a $100,000 TV show made in 1966. It is not logical to expect the bridge and interior of the ship to look exactly the same as it was before.

Sure, I wish it looked a little closer to the original, but if fussing over details on a set makes someone a fan of Star Trek, then I guess I’m not a fan.

Instead, I’m a fan of the characters, the adventure, and the intellectual and emotional component of Star Trek. Yes, the geek in me is also a fan of the ship and the tech, but those are just vehicles to tell a story.

Besides, it’s like Klingons with ridges. You’ve got to imagine that they had them during Classic Trek. Likewise, you have to imagine that this is the way the ship looked back in the 60’s. If the guys who designed the ship in the 60’s were designing it today, it would something like this. There’s no way even the original designers would make it look exactly like it did before.

189. Paulaner - March 11, 2009

We forget a simple thing: the fans of Star Trek are emotionally attached to the old TOS bridge. I *love* it too. It’s like being at home. But we cannot honestly say that it isn’t outdated and that it will appeal non-trekkers. It’s clearly something out of the 60s, vintage and retro. That’s not the right direction to bring a fresh vibe to Star Trek for a new generation.

190. Holger - March 11, 2009

It seems Scott Chambliss really did a lot of thinking about this project, and I think he has identified the big questions which needed to be adressed.
But, unfortunately, the balance tilted the wrong (IMO) way with all the big decisions, resulting in an overblown, overloaded, flashy and inelegant design – that’s based, of course, on what we’ve got a sneek peek at so far.
The classic TOS design, with all its apparent cardboard shortcomings, was simple, sleek, elegant, functional. This is an overall design feature which hasn’t been captured at all, from what I can see, in the updated version. The TMP design could have served as another example of Spartan elegance, but it didn’t.
But I guess I should be happy, after all, that a successful effort was made to capture the positive, optimistic spirit of Trek in the design, and that Trek was not alien-bladerunnerized.

191. Geoffers - March 11, 2009

I am sure this will upset people.. but I am getting a little confused how, every single thing of this movie is getting picked to pieces… for me, I won’t be watching it thinking “mmmm shame the ncels aren’t red caped”, “mmm oh I don’t like the bridge”… “MMMMM oh the uniforms aren’t the same”….. for me.. I will watch it.. and soak up every moment of my new “Trek fix”… and loving that it is back…

I know everyone has an opinion.. but maybe just allow yourselves to relax a little and ejoy it.. not find all that is wrong with it…..plus, it’s very easy to pick holes, when you aren’t involved in the creative process yourself..It’s always easier to pull things appart, than it is to create… let’s give these guys some credit for the work they do, not constantly be bitching about how wrong they MAY have got things…

192. Paulaner - March 11, 2009

#191 “but I am getting a little confused how, every single thing of this movie is getting picked to pieces”

Considering that almost every new movie introduced big changes to props and design without too many explanations, yes, you are right. The new movie is under a magnifying lens, while we should simply try to enjoy it on the big screen.

193. Unbel1ever - March 11, 2009

The bridge is functional ??? I guess this guy has a fundamentally different definition of “functional” than I. I mean the sheer whiteness is distracting. All the lights, reflections and glares. Have you ever worked on a glaring computer screen with a light overhead ? No chance to work there. Also the bridge, while appearing to be larger is also far too busy. I always liked that there were only so and so many people on the bridge. It gave the impression of an advanced command center where few could wield enormous amount of power. This bridge to me is a step backwards from that.

194. Digginjim - March 11, 2009

I can accept most of the designs – even the slightly weird looking enterprise… but the bridge is just horrible – way too busy, too big and confusing in terms of what each station is. I’m surious that Spock is supposed to be at his station position from the OS – as far as I can see from the images he has to stand at a kind of lecturn – horrible.

195. RM10019 - March 11, 2009

Are the bases of the bridge chairs Delta shields?

196. Trek Nerd Central - March 11, 2009

191, 192. Yes. Thank you for saying it.

Just imagine the nit-picking (and the outrage) were “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” produced and released in the age of the Internet.

197. James Cawley - March 11, 2009

The original series design was and is pure science fiction. Looked at in the proper context , it is not dated. We certainly do not have color coded buttons that change function simply by the order in which they were pushed (that by the way was Matt’s intention, for their operation. He told me so.) At any rate Matt grounded all his designs in functionality. The original designs could have been used and given a slight makeover, like what was done for the uniforms. I wish more respect had been paid to what had come before, but these folks had a job to do, and they did what they felt they had to do to make a 200 million dollar movie accessible to a 2009 audience.
By the way if you are interested in Matt’s work or Star Trek design I urge everyone to read my dear friend Doug Drexlers blog at this addy: http://drexfiles.wordpress.com/page/9/
You will gain some major insight into Trek design and you will see some fascinating photos. Doug and Matt were close Friends and Thanks to Doug, I met Matt.
James Cawley

198. Selor - March 11, 2009

@196
It won’t really change from what we are seeing now… probably it had been far worse than what we are seeing here *gg*

199. Denise de Arman - March 11, 2009

James Cawley#197- Thank you for your imput.

200. Geoffers - March 11, 2009

#196… yes! exactly.. god how different was that to the TOS bridge.. but again… I remember being to pleased to see my fav sci-fi back, to even notice it looked different.. infact Iliked the fact it had “mooved with the times”… I can’t believe people are even questioning “oh could you work an 8 hour shift in an environment like that”…. come on chaps, do we really have to apply real life to our enjoyable bit of space opera?.. in that case,oooh them Klingon bridge’s.. so dark..oh I would have a head ache after a 8 hour stint working there… come on chaps… let’s enjoy the ride.. we are so close… let’s enjoy these tasters of info we are being fed, as right now it feels we are bigting the hand that is trying to feed us these!

201. JT - March 11, 2009

I agree 197 about your assesment iof what they did with the uniforms in the movie and what they could have done with the sets and the ship herself! I think they miss the boat!

202. Jay - March 11, 2009

191, 192 … finally, someone who represents the polls!

I agree wholeheartedly … not too long ago all fans had was a tired and worn out franchise, now we have the largest Star Trek film to date and is able to conjure up nostalgic emotions not felt since childhood (at least by me) through the trailers alone.

I’m in … all the way!!

In addition, the latest trailer, with the recent developments in the second Countdown comic tie in, has really shown me that this movie is liable to be very dark, which will tamp down the “bright” fervor of the bridge a little bit, so there will be this clash of darkness and light. Look at the (few) scenes we’ve seen with Nero… they’re all dark and gloomy, and his destructive wake over Vulcan is like a blackened trail of abysmal dead. Compare that to the brightness which Kirk & Co. find themselves. The bridge is light and airy, as are most the (few) scenes we’ve seen of them. It’s the simple use of light to set mood. Think of Rura Penta with it’s harsh walls and cold atmosphere, which the place certainly was, beyond the temperature and compare that to the optimistic feel of the Khitomer Conference. Just a thought…

203. Spock - March 11, 2009

The TOS bridge and even the TMP/TWOK bridges looked more functional than the iBridge. The TMP/TWOK bridge kept the design simple, and the upgrades between them really only changed how information was displayed on the screens at the various stations. Also, in the movies the bridge was lit with red lighting during alerts, which is something military vessels do currently. The ibridge just looks too bright.

204. Unbel1ever - March 11, 2009

# 196

No, I don’t think the reaction would be the same. TMP, while changing the design, kept most of the basics intact. Besides TMP had to show a different ship and design, since it was supposed to play in the future of TOS. This movie on the other hand has thrown many beloved design elements as well as working designs right out of the window, while introducing ridiculous new one, which in itself wouldn’t be as bad, if this was Trek’s future, but not it’s past. My point is, the moment they decided to redo this era of Trek, they were measured by what has come before and let’s face it the original designs in an updated non-cheap version would still look a whole lot better than what we’ve got here.

205. Alex Rosenzweig - March 11, 2009

#154 – ” I don’t think anyone pulled and picked appart the look of the bridge in each “TOS” based film… and that changed quite radicaly between movies.”

Heheheh…

Oh, yes, we did. Trust me, we did. Each time it changed. ;)

What’s happening now is no different at all, really.

206. Alec - March 11, 2009

I share many of the opinions expressed so far. I’m not much of a fan of the new bridge. It looks very gaudy and a bit tacky. There are far too many spot lights. I don’t like the ‘receptionist posts’, with the over-arching library desk lamps, nor do I like the glass (?) screens that have been dotted around the bridge. And I don’t think it’s very similar, even just in overall layout, to the original bridge. I am quite disappointed with what I’ve seen of the bridge. But that may change, when I see more of it, and in motion.

Having seen the new trailer, I’m excited and optimistic about the new film. The style, glitz, and razzle-dazzle have been there from day one. But now we’re seeing a bit more substance. We’re seeing a glimpse of the emotional content of the film. And the cast are, to me, beginning to ‘feel’ like their characters, like Gene Roddenberry’s characters. Take Pine. He’s said he’s not imitating Shatner; nevertheless, his portrayal is very similar. It’s heavy on emotion. I don’t mean he’s overacting. I mean he’s heavily expressive, in all scenes, whether he’s speaking, staring, or whatever. Take the seen where he says ‘yer we do’, or something, just look at the eyes, the face. Very Shatner. All we need now is for him to say, ‘Neeeeeeeeeerrrroo’! It would also be good if they worked in the never-spoken, but famed line, ‘Beam me up, Scotty’.

207. Paulaner - March 11, 2009

You know, I personally like new takes on things. I am a huge, hard-core fan and I know that Trek is important to many of us in a way that trascends rationality, but I like seeing new points of view even if that means breaking one rule or two. I enjoyed the old TOS bridge in that mirror episode of Enterprise (wonderful!) and I will enjoy this new bridge with the same passion ;)

208. Frederick - March 11, 2009

It seems to me that the designer just glanced at the old stuff and took off on his own direction without referencing the originals very much. Oh, well, it’s just background. I hope that the script and characters take rek to it’s full potential. I want to feel the old familiar tingle on my neck and scalp (without using Seltzen Blue) as we see out old friends become the legends they were.

209. Spock - March 11, 2009

I really, really hope that this movie does well enough that a few more Star Trek films are made, but that those ones do worse and worse at the box office, so that we get a NEW new creative team – a good one, this time.

210. M.E. - March 11, 2009

#9-Who the hell would ever go to Milwaukee, let alone a museum in Milwakee?

211. dfinn - March 11, 2009

I gotta say –

There are a lot of folks with really negative attitudes. Hate to put that out, as many will read it as “EVERYONE has a negative attitude” — not what I mean. Nevertheless, it’s really disheartening that so many can embrace, on one hand, the utopian vision of “IDIC”, and still wear their blinders so tightly.

The production design for this film will help to sell the movie, make money, and encourage investment, and development, of new stories in the future.

What’s important to me, personally, is the story. That I wont’ know until May 8.

212. Mark - March 11, 2009

Wow, talk about some close-minded folks here. Look, the bottom line is the stuff from the 60’s does look dated– and small. “In a Mirror, Darkly” looked good, but it looked good to Star Trek fans because it was nostalgic. The designs were great for the day, but for a movie, they need something else. Having said all that, these new designs aren’t what I would have done– or, it appears what any canonists would have done– but please give it a shot. I’ll say this about the bridge set– ibridge (what a stupid term) or no, it looks big and it gives the impression that the Enterprise is big. I’m all for that. Could they have used more color? Sure, I suppose. But, they didn’t, so that’s that.

Remember, this is just a movie from a TV show. Don’t give yourselves heart attacks, people.

213. New Horizon - March 11, 2009

112. RMBurnett – March 10, 2009

Sure, if you’re talking about the Epsilon personnel, but all flag and ship bound officers wore the TOS enterprise badge.

“These uniforms bore rank insignia on the sleeve or on shoulder tabs. The Enterprise arrowhead emblem was adopted as Starfleet’s insignia and was worn on the chest by shipboard personnel and flag officers. Base personnel, like those on Epsilon IX, continued to wear duty badges unique to their assigned base. ”

As for using the microphone…come on…it’s 1966. I even noticed it when I saw Court Martial for the first time when I was 5 years old. Season 1 of Trek had a fairly decent budget for the time…I believe roughly 190,000 for each 1st season episode. Around 1,201,768 in today’s dollars. There were plenty of things instantly recognizable, viewers of the time weren’t stupid. lol I’m not saying they couldn’t have done better in the new movie, I’m just saying…that TOS did it too…with a decent budget for the time. Maybe they did it as a playful nod to the original series.

214. Holger - March 11, 2009

204 Unbel1ver: “an updated non-cheap version would still look a whole lot better than what we’ve got here.”
Exactly!

205 Alex Rosenzweig: “Oh, yes, we did. Trust me, we did. Each time it changed. ;)”
Exactly! (In my case, from STIV onwards) It just wasn’t broadcast all over the internet back then :-)

215. Hbasm - March 11, 2009

I love the design. Hue, saturation, luminance and contrast, it’s all perfectly balanced in a pleasant style that perfectly fits the Federation policy. Not sure about the rest of the movie though … but I never liked movies.

216. spider1981 - March 11, 2009

Wow. Sooooo much crying and belly aching in here. I’ve read a lot of amusing and some down right puzzling commentary on this article.
Just to throw my opinion into the ring like the other couple hundred people, I’m 27 years old and grew up on TNG, DS9, and VOY, and I never had much interest in TOS. I can say that this movie has changed that. I think the new design aesthetics and sets look fantastic to me. I used to greatly dislike the original Enterprise design, but I love the new re imagined Enterprise, the bridge, the corridors, and everything else I’ve seen.

217. Selor - March 11, 2009

I think most that want the Style of TOS don’t grasp that this was made for TV… and that it would look horrible on the Big Screen…
Just look at the TOS Connie in “In a mirror darkly” you never saw much of it… every exterior shot was only seconds long, the Bridge shots the same… and they knew why they did it… because this style won’t fit into the 21st Century… not to speak of the Big Screen and so do the Designers of the new movie… they made the Bridge and the Ship fitting for the Big Screen…

And ALL Designers did this… there were at least 2 Designs for the TOS Bridge and at least 2 Versions of the Connie… the TOS Designers revamped the Ship for the First movie knowing that it won’t look good on the Big Screen… they changed the Bridge for every movie, because they knew the people at this year expect something better and then “Generations” the destruction of the Ent-D was intended because it just doesn’t fit into the Big Screen, it was designed for TV and they changed the Bridge and they destroyed the ship to make the Ent-E solely made for fitting into the Cinema… and they changed the Bridge on the Ent-E too for every movie (okay there were only minor changes but they did it to fit into this years viewers)

So… why does everyone now is so upset that the bridge and the design was changed again? I can’t understand it… everything was changed over and over again… why does it seem to be a problem now?

218. New Horizon - March 11, 2009

To nobody in particular….

For my 34th birthday on Monday, my wife did something very special. She rented our local independent movie theater, where she volunteers, and gave me a private Screening of Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan. I have never gotten to see this movie on the big screen, and remember begging my parents ‘non-trekkers’ to take me, as a I held the entertainment section of the newspaper in their faces, when I was a kid. No go…they wouldn’t take me.

So, around 15 of my friends and I filed into the darkened theater…picked a good seat and settled in with some popcorn and drinks! :)

It was brilliant seeing the movie on the big screen, but the one thing I realized…is that after not having that original big screen experience, I finally saw this movie the way a non-trek fan would see it. I saw the cheese, I saw the bad effects. All the things I’ve ignored and glossed over my entire life…I FINALLY understood.

I saw The Menagerie on the big screen last year at our BIG Mainstream cinema. It was huge, and while it did look pretty good…again, I finally saw what everyone else saw….because I was seeing it in a way I hadn’t seen it before. It removed the comfort zone, and in turn…the rose tinted glasses.

I still love both TOS and the original movies….but they’re not to be recreated. We have to be realistic, understanding, mature and gracious.

I’ve let my preconceptions go, and I can see the good in this film…both in the exterior ship design and the sets. For any relationship to grow and prosper…be it with a loved one or with a beloved series. The death grip has to be loosened and you have to let it get away….otherwise it will be smothered…overly mothered and die.

Trek is alive…it has a change of underwear, but it’s alive.

219. Dansk - March 11, 2009

I doubt anyone reads things this far down the page, but I’ll add my two cents.

I don’t like the design of the bridge. I don’t care that it looks nothing like the original bridge, no concern could be farther from my mind. I wanted and expected something wildly new and different.

This is not what I was expecting.

I look at designs from a “would I want to live/work there” perspective. This bridge looks harsh and sterile thanks to all the use of white and light blue; definitely not the kind of place I could see living. Even a Klingon battle cruiser looks like a more comfortable and inviting place.

Humans naturally live in a green and brown environment; we’re land dwellers. It makes sense to me that if you were going to replicate a comfortable environment for these people to live in for months at a time, there would be more earth tones and yellower light. I would pretty quickly go crazy on that bridge. TNG had a great colour scheme, and while I’m not saying they should have gone for the same idea (it looks just as dated now as the original series) it would have been nice to see a different take on the colour palette.

I really hope the living quarters look nothing like the rest of the ship, for the sake of the poor crew’s sanity.

220. Michael - March 11, 2009

I find the dabte interesting. Back after STV/VI Harve Bennett piched an academy story w/ all new actors and Takei blasted this concept at cons and Paramount nixed it, after fans revolted. See how a few years changes Takei’s/fan’s objections? Do I wish the new film’s bridge’s color palate was more 60’s warm primary colors, yea, but I’ll get over it.
Do I think the new nacelles/pylons are ugly, yep, but I’ll get over it.
Do I feel Chekov being present from the beginning in the academy and prior to further along after the core crew had already been in place, yea, but I’ll get over it.
Do I think the main Romulan looks more Nemesis-like, than TOS canon-like, yea, I’m still on the fence on this.
I wait the film with an open mind.

221. kmart - March 11, 2009

217,
maybe because this time it changed for the worse. Not only that, but it hasn’t got much thought behind it, something that at least excuses the bad parts of the TMP bridge, since they had some advisors who know their stuff.

And yeah, on the matter of the insignia changing, it happened for TMP, not TNG. There are exceptions in the film, but Sackett and everybody made a point of saying it was all changed in S’Fleet to honor the E for having gone through a 5 yr mission relatively intact.

222. kmart - March 11, 2009

218,

You saw the bad effects in TWOK. What, may I ask, were they, outside of some terrible matte paintings and less than Trumbull level ILM work? TWOK looks pretty good compared to NEMESIS in fx, even now (and yeah, I saw it at a theater here a few years ago, so I have an excellent basis for comparison.)

223. Denise de Arman - March 11, 2009

New Horizon#218- Just out of curiosity (because I did not see TWOK on the large screen either), to what are you refering when you use the descriptive adjective “cheese”? Are you referencing Kahn and his rowdy band of rebels, or the Enterprise?

224. GaryP - March 11, 2009

Does the Bridge have a ‘Genius Bar’ ?

225. New Horizon - March 11, 2009

222. kmart – March 11, 2009

The reused Trumble stuff was great. I have to get a group together to rent the Theater for a TMP: Directors Edition screening. The rest of it didn’t stand up quite as well to the test of time. If you couldn’t see it, then that’s fine, but going from a 27 inch television screen to the full sized movie theater brought it home. I would agree that they look better than Nemesis in terms of having the realism of the physical models, but for overall production value…Nemesis wins, and I hate Nemesis. lol

226. New Horizon - March 11, 2009

223. Denise de Arman – March 11, 2009

Well, a lot of the movie is cheesy, in a way that is fun and we kind of overlook as fans. Some of the acting and production values especially. When Harve Bennet said he could make 3 or 4 movies on Trek 2’s budget, he wasn’t kidding. ;)

Still love the movie, and everyone had a fun time…even the non-trekkers, but I came away from the experience with a broader perspective and an appreciation for what non-trekkers see.

227. BK613 - March 11, 2009

One thought to keep in mind is that the bridge we’ve seen might not be the bridge we actually end up with at the end of the film. We may get a reset to a “cleaner” version of this bridge. One without the barcode scanners and extra lights. IOW, maybe this bridge is like the variations of the 1701-D bridge we see in “Parallels,” with extra details added to show we are a different reality.

Just something to think about (and may be hope for.)

228. Shaun "I am the music man" Brown - March 11, 2009

Here’s me thinking that as Star Trek fans, and believers in Gene Roddenberry’s, we would have the ability to appreciate change, accept that the world changes and has to move on otherwise it would grind to a halt. Also, for those comments regarding TOS, the one major thing I take away from TOS everytime I watch it, is the message of acceptance and respect for all life, all people deserve respect, have all the same rights, that no-one is a second class citizen and that no-one should be made to feel like they are useless, worthless, under-valued etc…

…and yet, as Star Trek fans, we have the almost unique ability to damn, criticize and verbally assault not only other Star Trek fans, but those people who have made this new movie…a movie that after the failures of Nemesis and Star Trek: Enterprise should, in theory, never have been made. Why can’t we just be excited that a new movie is coming? Granted, there are going to be things some people don’t like, some things people will love, but why do we have to get to the point where we release the torrents of bile and nastiness that some posts in this, and other, threads have done?

I am a Trekkie, I have been since 1992 and I shall continue to be so until the day I get transported to the great Holodeck in the sky but sometimes I read how we talk to each other, how we talk about J.J, and the writers and the production team, and the actors and I have to say, I feel a little ashamed, so much for learning about, and practising, the sensibilities of Star Trek.

229. kmart - March 11, 2009

228,

Another aspect of your Trek is excellence, aspiring to something more and better, rather than just rehashing or recycling. Putting TREK through the Joseph Campbell mythogrinder doesn’t necessarily improve it, and probably goes in the opposite direction from excellence.

Also, there is something about early trek that looked inviting, plus visually compelling in terms of contrast. But this thing looks like the Revlon aisle at Target, or a CoverGirl makeup commercial, which is hardly warm or inviting, and in place of rich contrasts, we have lots of white and costumes used as points of contrast, which CAN work (2001) but doesn’t here.

Just because Trek preaches tolerance doesn’t mean ‘accept crap.’ Maybe it does mean ‘don’t piss all over the crap’ but it doesn’t mean settle. Trek isn’t about settling, and it isn’t about lowest common denominator (in theory), despite the fact this pic looks like it was made with that in mind (otherwise they’d never’ver gotten 150 mil to play with.)

230. AJ - March 11, 2009

Star Trek II is 27 years old, and, yes, there are issues connected with the ageing of the effects. The sandstorms on Ceti Alpha V and the rudimentary computer graphics, even as depicted in the Genesis sim. Animated phaser damage to the two ships was, well, animated, and the polka-dot shield indicators (boop-boop-boop-boop!) were useless, except it showed the punters what the shields did. How about Chekov’s “doorbell-on-a handle” torpedo launcher?

It is an old film, but it still delivers the goods 100%.

I thought the Mutara nebula chase was beautiful, with pulsing reds, pinks and blues, and these two ships in silent running. Still gives me chills.

Khan and his augments are NOT one of the cheesy, dated elements. Montalban’s performance still rivets me every time I see it.

231. Bart - March 11, 2009

There’s no windshield?

I can’t possibly see this movie now. It’s ruined.

232. OldTrekFart - March 11, 2009

Well, now I know why the art direction for the movie is so bad: The art director and his research staff didn’t bother to actually study their source material.

1. Roddenberry was very specific about demanding that Matt Jefferies create something that was not only NOT like Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon, but would look feasible.

2. The original standing set was made of wood, and actually looks damned fine even in HD.

3. One of the reasons the show has stood the test of time despite crappy aliens, and cheesy planet sets is that the art design for the future equipment was something they thought about. Yes, we know, McCoy’s spinning scanner was a salt shaker, but the idea behind it was what made it revolutionary.

Every time the people involved on this project open their mouths it makes me cringe. Talk about assembling a team that in no way, shape, or form got the gestalt of the original “Trek”.

That being said, the movie — as a stand alone film — might be a fun ride. But as a piece of “Star Trek”? I have no hope left whatsoever.

233. ahkenatan - March 11, 2009

OK. I had to say something about the bridge. First I am an old school trekker and would have loved to see the new movie use all the old style sets. Had this been done the movie would have tanked and that would have been the end of Trek. I do like the new design and it looks modern. My guess is if this is successful and they do sequels then the bridge design will change some, if the past is anything to go off of.

I’m totally open to the look and feel of this new Trek version and I look forward to seeing the movie. Abrams, Orci, Kurtzman etc, are all around the same age as I am so seeing how my generation tackles this is really cool. Good luck guys!

234. Of Bajor - March 11, 2009

If you look at the Enteprise bridge plans for the Cage and The Animated Series, you will see where JJ got his main inspirations for layout.

235. Star Trackie - March 11, 2009

Wow. I just watched WOK and thought, in particular, how gorgeous the Enterprise and Reliant were in the colorful nebula. I don’t think they look outdated or cheesy in the least.

And remember, just because you CAN update a bridge and have it look different, slick, shiny and good does not mean if you slightly upgrade and enlarge the TOS version of the bridge, it will look old and bad. The same applies to the ship. Because you can make a new design of the Enterprise doesn’t automatically mean the original TOS version would look bad, properly detailed and filmed. One doesn’t dismiss the other. It’s a new universe, a new timeline with new aesthetics, plain and simple. Both happened, both exist and both can and will co-exist.

The new stuff is a little far too removed from the deep blacks and red and color I loved on the original bridge, (racked out of focus, those colored screens made for some great frame composition with close-ups of the actors) but it’s a new timeline, I’ll get used to it, and will still be first in line May 8th.

236. Phil - March 11, 2009

Two things…

On taking the job…the “baggage” comment was a hoot…

Something that always bugged me about Voyager, after seven years of trekking across god knows how much space, the ship rolled into Federation space showroom clean. You would have thought there would have been a few dents in the hull by then. At least Galactica is showing her age…

237. Valenti - March 11, 2009

By Grabthar’s Hammer, I want that bridge as my bedroom. >_<

So awesome. ;.;

238. Trek Nerd Central - March 11, 2009

198, 204.

Guys, I’m old enough to remember the run-up to TMP’s release, and let me tell you: the first images that were released of the monochromatic uniforms and redesigned E were a shocker. An absolute, unmitigated shocker.

Where could a fan vent, in those days? On the letters page of Starlog magazine — and that’s about it. So I went with it. We all did. We accepted the changes. We paid our 5 bucks (or whatever admission was back then) and showed up on opening day, and showed up again, and showed up again.

When TWOK came out a few years later with its re-re-designed uniforms and suchlike, I was relieved to see that color had returned to the Star Trek palette. But you know what? Even that film added new elements to the mythos. There were shockers aplenty, including Carol Marcus and the revelation that Kirk had an out-of-wedlock kiddie. Not to mention the death of Spock.

And DON’T tell me the design and uniform changes in TMP and TWOK were all narratively and logically driven. They were not. No military branch makes such radical design overhauls *twice* in the course of a few measly years.

In all honesty, some of the design changes we’re seeing in Abrams’ “Star Trek” are hardly as earth-shaking as TMP’s or TWOK’s. The look and feel of the old show is pretty darned intact. It’s just sleeker, less boxy, more gleaming.

That’s how I see it.

239. Paulaner - March 11, 2009

#218 “I finally saw this movie the way a non-trek fan would see it. I saw the cheese, I saw the bad effects. All the things I’ve ignored and glossed over my entire life”

I agree with you. Even STVI had a lot of cheese, in my opinion. The Enterprise bridge looked stale, in my eyes. Uninteresting and unexciting as the crew, too old for a Trek movie.

240. Scott B. here. - March 11, 2009

Any designer who dismisses the original series designs as being built with “no budget” and made of “cardboard” like a “soapbox derby” … well, I can’t take that guy too seriously. Those sets were quite well-done for their time, and are still quite beautiful and functional.

For what it’s worth, I’m in the “dislike” column of the new movie’s designs. They strayed too far from the source material.

But I’m still optimistic that the movie will be entertaining and enjoyable, despite my feelings about the visuals.

Scott B. out.

241. kmart - March 11, 2009

231,

From my interview with Chambliss:

The only greenscreen burn-ins were the huge viewing windows of the Enterprise and the Jellyfish

see, he said WINDOWS. Unless he is saying the ship’s displays USE windows, as in windows 2268?

242. John from Cincinnati - March 11, 2009

One question to those critics of the TOS bridge:

Are you saying the design was horrible or the materials? Every time I hear someone sound off about the original bridge, they always mention the cardboard walls. Ok, I agree. However, take the original design and make it with modern materials and you would have one heck of a good lookin’ bridge.

243. TOG - March 11, 2009

Thanks James for all you do!
Patiently waiting for part 2 Blood and Fire!
Say hello to the Doctor for me. we both “Pirates” in H.S

Yeah ! If you every need a extra Klingon, call me…

244. Kev-1 - March 11, 2009

I think the time travel loses some power because the “old trek” isn’t recognizable- kind of like Back to the Future if the 50’s looked like today – what ‘s the difference? It may be an age thing, but it;s hard for me to understand people saying that anything from TOS design is inherently unsuitable for us today. WIth updated materials there is no reason a TOS bridge could not be acceptable. A circle with a chair in the middle is still ergonomic in 2009. Is the light wall behind the Captain’s chair on the 2009 bridge functional or decorative?

245. Bradley1701 - March 11, 2009

I’m a diehard TOS fan and I love everything I see so far.

Fans will embrace this movie once they see it.

They embraced TMP despite it being different uniforms/sets/etc. from TOS…Fans embraced TNG despite a huge departure of uniform/set/ship design.

246. sean - March 11, 2009

#229

If you don’t think Campbell was already a considerable influence on the Trek writing staff in the 60s, you’re kidding yourself.

247. Dennis Bailey - March 11, 2009

#32:”Dennis Bailey, you are the living embodiment of what the rest of us think when we hear the word “Trekkie”.”

“We?” You’re barely competent to speak for yourself. LOL

248. JT - March 11, 2009

242 I agree with what you are saying about new materials! TOS bridge was made out of plywood though!

249. JT - March 11, 2009

238 I also remeber TMP and I have to say I love the refit and the bridge and other sets from the get go! The uniforms had to grow on me a bit! BTW the colors on TMP bridge are very close to the colors used on The Cage bridge1 folks love those colors in the first pilot! JJ mised the boat on the NuEnterprise and her bridge!

250. kmart - March 11, 2009

246, SEAN,

Christ, even GL didn’t read Campbell till he was almost done writing SW (there is some support for the notion that he didn’t read it till after, and backdated himself) … if you can find some support for GR (or Coon) even knowing Campbell’s name back then, I’d be astonished.

episodic standalone TV from the 60s is about as far from the hero’s journey as you can get, with or without commercial breaks.

Who’s kidding?

251. 8of12 - March 11, 2009

“Wah. Boo-hoo. Boo-hoo. Wah.”
-Guys that need to get over a MOVIE.

Looking good, Chambliss. I look forward to it. Cheers!
-A lifelong Trek fan

252. Dr. Image - March 11, 2009

Sorry, but the new bridge IS “cheeseball.”

#240- Well stated.

253. BaronByng - March 11, 2009

185 – thanks and back atcha :)

210. What have you got against Milwaukee? It’s a solid little city (that sadly, needs a livelier downtown) — home to 13 head offices of Fortune 1000 companies, a strong manufacturing center (Harleys) and of course, there’s the brewing industry. Their former mayor, John Norquist, is one of the most forward-thinking urban planners in the US; he’s now the head of the Congress for the New Urbanism, which is trying to save America from death via suburban sprawl.

It’s not Manhattan, but there’s a lot of manufacturing wealth in that town (similar to Madison) and thus, a lot of really lovely buildings. The Milwaukee Art Museum has a very well-curated collection and really…once you step inside the new wing, you’ll swear you’re on one of the CGI sets for Kamino from SW:EP II.

254. BaronByng - March 11, 2009

If it’s worth anything, I’m guessing the wall of blinking lights behind the captain’s chair is the main computer, or some sort of processing / storage node. It sure does look a lot like several racks of Xserves…

255. Dom - March 11, 2009

132. CMX54: ‘Anthony, perhaps CS has stepped over the line, but also a warning to Dennis Bailey is deserved for his constant ad hominem attacks. Or does one have to be a gung-ho supporter of the ST09 film to get by with nary a warning?’

Dennis is an onetime TNG writer, a critic on this site (my favourite actually: his reviews have a great sense of humour and are suitably irreverent, yet respectful!) He also makes the Starship Exeter web series.

I might not agree 100 per cent with everything Dennis says, but he knows considerably more about the business and Trek than most people here. We’re lucky to have him posting here.

If Dennis calls someone out on their behaviour, it’s 99.999 per cent likely to be deserved!

256. kmart - March 11, 2009

254,

Doncha figure it is to create contrast with the black shirt in the chair? Whole color scheme might be the antiTMP in that way, have costumes pop from bg rather than blend in. Trouble is, it makes it hard to make faces look good.

257. Bradley1701 - March 11, 2009

#240 and 252

In countless interviews with TOS actors when discussing TOS, they have all stated that TOS was operating on a very low budget, even compared to other shows of the 60’s…

The sets were good and were science fiction according to 1966….not 2008. Lets be creative…lets see science fiction…you watch any CSI show on tv right now and it looks more sci-fi than TOS. And while I liked the “In a Mirror Darkly” recreation of the sets it was all strictly due to nostalgia. Even the perfectly created sets of TOS with a modern tv show budget still looked dated compared to say, CSI Miami.

Star Trek cannot boldy go if all you want is a cookie cutter franchise.

258. Remington Steele - March 11, 2009

Good god, I skimmed through some of the messages here….I’ve heard of nitpicking but this has gone beyond ridiculous.

If people are going on about said Barcode scanners-they wont like this film one bit.

Its so very sad in a way.

It’s my own fault for reading some of the opinions here, I hate opinions columns and comments sections.

And it’s sad to see the teeniest pieces examined with an electron microscope.

You cant have any enjoyment of something if this is as far as its going.

And thats a shame.

Persoally I dont give a monkeys about how it all looks. This is the way the film is made and going on about it with such vitriol is actually depressing.

I’ll get pillared for what I’ve said but I dont mind because this is the last time I read the opinions section on any story.

I never thought I would see the day where I must use William Shatners famous line:

“Get a Life”

It’s sad but its relevant. Some people need to calm it down and have a look at themselves for what they are writing.

But hey, thats just me.

And however it all looks-I’m going to enjoy it and I dont give a damn if some console is coloured green instead of red….

259. Xai - March 11, 2009

I don’t think those interviewed need to walk on eggshells regarding their work on this movie just to avoid the hardcore fans ire. And I don’t think he really was that hard on the old designs. But I guess some need to vent.

Trekmovie’s Poll
Thoughts on production design in STAR TREK? (seen so far)

Love it (34%)
Mostly like it (35%)
Mixed feelings (19%)
Dislike it (11%)

Seems the 11% are working overtime on the threads.
IMO

260. Gary Seven of Nine - March 11, 2009

Funny how a lot of us take this soooooo personally…

Dukat:

Tell me, [insert OCD “I hate this movie for the most ridiculous reasons, especially because just by making it, Paramount has personally attacked my Trek Ideals” screen name here]… have you ever been diagnosed as anhedonic?

[“I hate this movie for the most ridiculous reasons, especially because just by making it, Paramount has personally attacked my Trek Ideals” screen name]:

You think I’m incapable of experiencing joy just because I’m cautious?

261. sean - March 11, 2009

#250

Most of what Campbell wrote and lectured about was simply an extension of concepts that Joyce, Jung & many others had explored previously, and I guarantee that DC Fontana, Robert Bloch, Theodore Sturgeon and Harlan Ellison were more than familiar with those concepts & authors. ‘The Hero’s Journey’ isn’t the only thematic element that Campbell ever discussed, you know. And just because George Lucas decided to appropriate and preach the concept doesn’t mean his vision of it is a perfect reflection of Campbell, either.

262. Jefferies Tuber - March 11, 2009

So many bleating sheep and so little rational analysis.

The Kelvin bridge is aesthetically a dead ringer for the TOS Enterprise bridge.

Then the Narada travels back in time, destroys the Klingon fleet, attacks the Kelvin, leaves some 25th C technology behind, and generally mobilizes the Federation to build stronger, more advanced ships.

Perhaps based on the annihilation of the Klingon fleet, Starfleet moves its construction facilities back to Earth.

More importantly, a lot of the technological and design changes that would have taken 20 years to roll out, happen early. Or, who knows? Maybe the run up in Starfleet budgets just led them to switch military contractors. The Kelvin and the TOS E may have been built by Utopia Planetia, but in this timeline, they may have already switched to the contractor that handled the TMP overhaul.

The iBridge line is so tired and uncreative. The new bridge is an accelerated version of the TMP’s design–lots of white, vacuformed plastic and a healthy dollop of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY-inspired minimalism.

The uniforms look great. They ship looks incredible. And in the grand total of 8sec of bridge footage that we’ve seen, we can already see that there’s a range of lighting, so that its not always bright white.

I don’t know if it’s incorporated into the movie, as it was in the pb books from the 80s and 90s, but a starship would require light cycles to emulate morning noon and night. Our bodies need this, by physiologically and psychologically, so a realistic bridge set should be lit for the time of day.

The people who keep referring to GALAXY QUEST are doing a disservice to STAR TREK. That movie was pedantic and condescending. I wonder how many retrospective comparisons one could make between SPACE BALLS and THE PHANTOM MENACE–maybe none, but Ep1 still sucked like the fluffer at a Tijuana donkey show.

263. Holger - March 11, 2009

219: “Humans naturally live in a green and brown environment; we’re land dwellers.”

You forget the aquatic ape theory ;-)

264. Simon - March 11, 2009

#253 – ILM used a lot of *miniatures* for the “sets” in SW: EP II. EP III used more miniatures in ILM’s 30 year history.

265. Jarod - March 11, 2009

I don’t like the new design. The bridge looks especially bad. The colors, the mixed up designs, barcode scanners, designer lamps and then it’s too big. That makes this look way too busy.

You all say the TOS bridge sucks, and I agree with that. It looks cheap and cheesy. But what about the Star Trek 6 bridge? Does that one look cheap? No, it looks alright. But does it look as fucked up as THIS new bridge? NO.

ST09’s bridge doesn’t look any more functional or any more advanced than ST VI bridge. In fact, I do think that new bridge will look very damn cheesy in ten years already.

266. trekboi - March 11, 2009

im ok with the basic designs from the new movie but the overly detailed and over lit blinding consoles are a cluttered i-saw.
But at least he used the basic design elements- why did he keep the basic design layouts?
because the original designs stand because of just that their design- they are more than their technology and materials.
Does anyone remember Herman Zimmermans beautyful Star Trek V-VI bridge design?
all he had to do was add some detail- some curves and replace the buttons with flat touch screens and it looked amazing.

the most troubling statement made by the latest designer was that he didnt want to use any recognisable tech then he contradicts himself and goes down to the local super market and steals their price scanners?

and his dismissive “Flash Gordon” comments regarding jefferies pionering design work were telling.
trashing your predesessor does not make your work any better.

i love how bright the enterprise is but the anti-septic lack of warmth and colour would eventualy effect the crew psychologicaly like being put in solitary confinement with blinding lights in your face- lol

6 out of 10 for attempted originaliy.

267. Kirk's Girdle - March 11, 2009

Galaxy Quest was a movie for fans of Star Trek. Non-fans would actually miss a lot of the in-jokes. Sure, it pokes a bit of fun at the convention fans, but theres really no way to overlook the antics of these people. They looked just as crazy in the film Trekkies (I’m looking at you, Koerner). But there’s even some drama present in depicting the plight of the stars and near stars of shows like these, who find themselves touring the convention circuit or taking any gig that will pay a buck.

Oh, I forget, what does pedantic mean? I’m gonna come back with a dictionary and kick some ass.

268. Kirk's Girdle - March 11, 2009

Re: Jarod.

I agree on the STVI bridge. It looks perhaps the most real of all. There’s no odd texturing or gadgeting calling attention to itself. It simply “is”, which is really the whole point.

269. Simon - March 11, 2009

I have to see the bridge on screen for a sustained amount of time in order to pass judgement for myself, not just brief trailer snippets or small publicity photos.

As for having something like the TOS bridge. Get real, it was dated the minute the 60’s ended. They radically redesigned it for the mid 70’s “Phase II” (something Cawley has ignored) and it looked more like this new film than what later evolved into TMP (white interiors, etc)!!

My family and I toured the replica at the STAR TREK: THE EXHIBITION, and my Mom, who was an adult during the original network run of TOS, was disappointed and surprised how undetailed and cheesy it looked. I had to explain to her it was enough for the fuzzy, tiny TVs of the late 60’s.
People need to get over the fact that it just doesn’t work anymore.

270. Simon - March 11, 2009

#31- Kmart…

ILM designed Star Trek III, I saw nothing wrong with their designs. If anything, it ws more respectful of TOS than I or II was.

271. ShawnP - March 11, 2009

269. Simon

Ditto.

272. Mazzer - March 11, 2009

The new 2008 bridge looks very good to me, although it looks “high tech 2008″, rather than “wow, that is so futuristic and different from today.” But then it’s very hard to design the future–science fiction always reflects the time period in which it is made, which in some ways is good. As the designer said in the article, it’s important for the envoronment to be “accessible” from the viewpoint of today’s audience.

273. James Cawley - March 11, 2009

#269 I have ignored it because it was only slightly modified and became TMP bridge. I am telling stories before TMP, not after. And Ido like the TMP bridge, just not as much as I like the original.
James

274. Chris Doohan - March 11, 2009

269 /271

Double ditto.

I stood in the center of the new bridge, by myself for over 10 minutes, and found it to look completely functional. It’s incredible and It will all come together in the movie.

Chris

PS It looked nothing like an Apple store to me.

275. James Cawley - March 11, 2009

My biggest complaint is not with the DESIGN of anything in this movie, it is with with my fellow fans. For a group of people who supposedly pride themselves on being a forward thinking group of optimists who look forward to a brighter and better future, a whole lot of negativity is being handed out around here.
James Cawley

276. Chris Doohan - March 11, 2009

269

Ditto, well, except the James Cawley statement

277. Mugz - March 11, 2009

I think the new bridge looks way too ‘fussy’. It looks strangely ‘tacky’ as well. Certainly not a bridge you could truly imagine people working in day in day out without getting a migraine! The lighting and relective surfaces everywhere is awful – looks like a 70s clothes store!

Those bar-code scanners (if thats what they are) are a REALLY bad idea too. I’m all for change and re-imagining these iconic sets and so on but this design is just plain mediocre and garish. Not truly functional looking at all.

However still patiently optimistic for the new film though – not long now :)

278. Ponnfarr6996 - March 11, 2009

All I must say……
Space….the final frontier.These are the voyages of the starship …Enterprise…….Her continuing mission…to seek out new life and new civilizations………to BOLDLY go where no man has gone before……………BOLDLY……BOLDLY………..thanks for being bold Abrams and everyone involved in this film………Hardcore trekkies are to this film what Starfleet Command is to Kirk in SFS……there….I said it.

279. Remington Steele - March 11, 2009

#275

Fair Play to you James.

You hit the nail on the head.

What some people should do is trawl back through the archives on this site and read what Bob Justman wrote about appearing at a convention back in 86/87 and explained about the Next Generation.

He was greeted with boo’s and said to the audience that he was shocked. For such forward thinking people, open to all kinds of possibilities, to react in this manner to something new was shocking.

The exact same thing is happening here.

For shame.

280. Chris Doohan - March 11, 2009

275.

Hi James .

281. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 11, 2009

I tried to be constructive in #64. No reply at all.

Keep up the good work J.C.!

282. James Cawley - March 11, 2009

Hi Chris!

283. saint-antoine - March 11, 2009

At this point, the title of this thing should be changed as not to confuse people about this movie being Trek… it is not !

How about “LOST… in space” or “LOST… in essence”…

I said it before, if Abram and friends wanted to mess with Trek so bad they should have started their own product and take it wherever they wanted it to go… but Star Trek this is not… my thoughts go to Matt Jeffries: may he rest in peace…

And I thought Berman was bad…

284. Chingatchkook - March 11, 2009

I’m amazed at the sheer bipolar nature of the fans here. A couple of days ago everyone was raving about trailer #3. Now everyone is bickering away. I hope to see a very good and entertaining movie in May…I sure hope it doesn’t turn into a brawl.

285. Gabriel Bell - March 11, 2009

275. Thank you. I like to visit these threads for a sense of community, not for the dissonance that is seemingly growing as May 8 gets closer and closer. Too bad.

286. Trek Nerd Central - March 11, 2009

283.

Dude, I’m sorry – have you seen it already? Because I have not.

Anyway, if the movie shares some elements with “Lost,” I’m happy. That’s a well-made, well-told tale with fascinating characters. And it’s unbelievably smart.

287. Bradley1701 - March 11, 2009

I agree with James and Chris completely.

288. pock speared - March 11, 2009

dear c.s. lewis
won’t you please come to the film with me on opening day? it would increase my pleasure tenfold to enjoy this exciting, lovingly-crafted film that i have so long awaited with someone like you. your every childish grimace and infant whine will make me quiver with joy. each banal complaint you utter will validate the passion i have for the project, and your self-obsessed, insipid outrage and your petty, delusionary contempt for the hard work and visionary success of the film will overwhelm me with satisfaction.
i’ll gladly pay for your ticket and what ever drinks you might need afterwards. it. it would be amazing to watch such an arrogant, clearly clueless twit such as yourself flail and suffer before me.

289. Mark - March 11, 2009

Nice to hear people who have actually seen the full sets act with such class. Huzzahs, Chris & James.

290. Holger - March 11, 2009

275 James Cawley: There’s no sharp boundary between criticism and negativity. But I believe criticism is (usually) a healthy thing and it isn’t necessarily the same as negativity.

291. Check The Circuit - March 11, 2009

The Transporter Room picture…what’s wrong with it? It doesn’t look right. The ceiling and background are crystal clear but the foreground looks out of focus and not quite in the right perspective…or something like that. Is it a standing set or did they composite Pine and Quinto onto to a CGI background?

(I thought I’d heard they weren’t going to physically build all the sets and do what I described above. But not for the Transporter room. Say it ain’t so.)

292. Alex Rosenzweig - March 11, 2009

#285 – I always figured it’d be too much to hope for to expect any real consensus of reaction when it came to the film.

Aside from the natural variety of responses among a large group of poeple, Abrams really did take a fairly risky path in trying to reimagine TOS, the look and feel of which has been ingrained into our heads for decades. There will always be some folks who love his choices, some who hate them, and a whole lot of reactions in between.

I’m not concerned about a variety of reactions. I’m only concerned when people start actively disrespecting each other for *having* a variety of reactions.

293. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - March 11, 2009

Hi Chris! Hi James!

Please to understand. The fans who are displeased with the new designs are looking at the old ones through the eyes of a long lost love. They are always prettier the way we remember them than they actually appeared.

The main quibble is with fans who are not literate enough to express themselves without vitriol. Sure, I have things I prefer from the older versions of Star Trek coming from a design asthetic. But if I am to be honest with myself, it is for the reasons I gave above. And I have probably been less than diplomatic in my commentary. But as a grown up person (who knows, maybe some of those less than adult comments come from people who are not adults?) I know that I have to see the finished product to truly judge it.

294. Raphael Salgado - March 11, 2009

@224: A real Trekkie would know that Spock would be behind the Genius Bar. DOH! ;)

On a sidenote, it’s really so nice to have people so close to the movie and be able to communicate with them in a personal manner, such as Bob Orci, Chris Doohan and James Cawley.

Just to think – the USS Enterprise is flying around all this debris from the devastated USS Kelvin in the movie, while our entire space program is threatened by two tiny satellites that crashed into each other miles above in our orbit. We really need to step up our game if we’re ever gonna get off this rock.

I personally liked the original transporter effect, myself, but I even more, I liked the fact that the people looked like they were in a state of suspended animation during the transport on The Original Series (probably due to the limitations on special effects at the time). In the movie versions, starting with ST:TWOK, they’re moving around and having conversations during the transportation, which I thought would have been “unrealistic.” Which will ST:TFB be like?

295. marvin - March 11, 2009

New Trailer for J.J. Abrams’ ‘Star Trek’ Breaks All Existing Records With Over
1.8 Million Downloads During First 24 Hours on Apple.com

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS181729+11-Mar-2009+PRN20090311

296. Jefferies Tuber - March 11, 2009

Raphael, the Kelvin is destroyed about 27 years before the debris scenes in the trailer.

297. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - March 11, 2009

#294

“Which will ST:TFB be like?”

Of course, you are referring to Star Trek: Timmy! (er..I mean Star Trek: T’Meh!)

298. tman - March 11, 2009

“the anti-septic lack of warmth and colour would eventualy effect the crew psychologicaly”
“a comfortable environment for these people to live in for months at a time, there would be more earth tones and yellower light. I would pretty quickly go crazy on that bridge.”
“a starship would require light cycles to emulate morning noon and night. — so a realistic bridge set should be lit for the time of day.”

I work in high tech in well lit white rooms in shifts. This is typically a safe work environment that maintains an alert, awake state gives good visibility for completing work . We tend to use diffuse light sources, though. I think warming tends to put people on edge more, so I think a bridge would stay white and cooly lit and shift toward warm in emergencies– but not dark red like TWOK which makes visibility poorer and doesn’t make an externally lit starship any safer. Regarding natural cycles, a ship crew would work in shifts and the lighting in the work areas would be constant and task appropriate with lighting in other parts of the ship would likely be modulated to provide the natural cycles of lighting the body requires and support needs of non-Earthlings and their close cousin the Alaskan (not every planet has the same day length). In so far as natural light cycles is too much of a luxury, I think people would just have to control lighting in their quarters like TOS or just adjust to the harsh environment as people in some professions do today.

299. InSaint - March 11, 2009

To me almost every aspect of the design of the new film is an epic fail.

300. Paulaner - March 11, 2009

#268 “I agree on the STVI bridge. It looks perhaps the most real of all.”

As I said in a previous post, I don’t like the STVI bridge for the same reason. It lacks of personality. It doesn’t exceed. In my personal opinion, in science-fiction you must come up with something strange, something unreal, something weird.
The new bridge, its bright white colors, the lamps… it seems to have personality.

301. LordCheeseCakeBreath - March 11, 2009

I have to say the bridge really looks odd and uncomfortable. Too bright. Not nick picking. I just wish it had a less plastic look to it. This bridge will be “dated” in a couple of years. It’s just too Apple. The I-Bridge.

302. Jarod - March 11, 2009

Simon,

of course the TOS bridge doesn’t work anymore. But this new one is way too cheesy, too. I find it irritating. Sometimes less is more. And then it’s really lame put todays designer lamps and barcode scanners in there. And people already bitched about the joystick in Star Trek Insurrection.

Chambliss said you see that the TOS bridge is the result of a low budget and cardboard sets. But I say the new bridge looks like the result of TOO much money.

I don’t really want to repeat myself, but the Bridge of the Enterprise-A or Excelsior in Star Trek 6, or anything after that, look much more reasonable. And definately not cheesy.

303. Jarod - March 11, 2009

And that with a lower budget. ;)

304. C.S. Lewis - March 11, 2009

^ Dear Governator –
Thanks for asking! Recovery is going well, but let no one tell you otherwise, the pain of open heart surgery is excruciating. Pain killers merely dull the body’s reaction, leaving the sensation intact. Every cough is like an electric shock or, if you’ve studied the martial arts, about the same as a sensei delivered, practice-level karate punch to the sternum.

The good news is that I am in otherwise perfect health and now that this injury is repaired, I’m good for the next 10,000 miles as they say. It will surprise some here to learn that even my Mesan’s brain is in perfect operational condition as verifed by CAT and MRI scans :-) Actually, given the improvement in blood flow post-AI repair, its likely working as well as anytime in the past 10 years!

An unexpected side benefit is the time I get to spend with my expectant wife and my little son. Usually, I travel four or more days each week for my client practice. I’ve never had so much time at home and honestly, this will be the hardest to relinquish once I am cleared to reenter the rat race.

Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis

305. Chris Doohan - March 11, 2009

293.

It’s nice to see fans with open minds. As for me, I have a personal, life-long connection with Star Trek, as I am not only a huge fan of the show, I also played on the Bridge as a child. Having said that, I entered the studio with an open mind and found myself falling in love with the new version. Yes, at first glance there are certain things that I would have done differently, but I didn’t have the luxury of knowing the complete story line. Now that I know more, I believe they got it right.

295 That’s awesome!!!

306. Selor - March 11, 2009

Just listen to Mr. Doohan…

We just have to remember what it is about beeing a Trekkie… beeing open-minded, positive in views and we all shall work together like a big family… ’cause we are one family, we shouldn’t rip us and everything else apart!

307. LordCheeseCakeBreath - March 11, 2009

JAMES CAWLEY: Would you ever consider making a feature length movie? It would be so cool to see an original Star Trek origin picture. One without the alternate time line. Just a thought. Keep up the great work!

308. Raphael Salgado - March 11, 2009

@296: Ok, I’m probably mistaken on the Kelvin debris, but it looks like a lot of other starships received a can of whoop-ass when they warped into the sector. Or maybe Captain Pike did a slingshot around the sun… hehe

@307: I’m down to see a full-length New Voyages feature film! James, can I be a red-shirt? I promise to die tastefully. ;)

309. Thump Meatgristle - March 11, 2009

Some things appear to have been redesigned for the sake of being redesigned. For example, the new transporter effect was a key effect that they shouldn’t have played with so much. The fade/sparkle effect was always one of my favorite effects from TOS and even the tinkering they did for later movies and series didn’t stand up to the original effect.

Sparklies in a top lit tube of vegetable oil, well shaken and photographed upside down [or something like that]. How does one beat that for its sheer creativeness?

310. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - March 11, 2009

Chris

You played on the original bridge set. Automatically, all of Trek fans envy you. Of course, your dad played Scotty, so I guess that kind of puts things into proper perspective.

If you say that the designs of the the bridge etc. are fitting with the storyline, then I shall defer to your enlightened point of view.

And it would be cool for James to do his version of an origin story. But that is probably asking for too much. Having one’s cake and eating it too and all.

311. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - March 11, 2009

I don’t really have much of a beef with the new designs of the Enterprise, nothing to keep me from seeing the movie. The only overarching thing I notice is everything is so darned *big*.

I realize part of that stems from the need to translate the Enterprise to the big screen. We saw the bridge “expand” from its TV roots to movie roots in ST:TMP, but even this new design the feel is too large. Lots of wasted space.

Recall David Gerrold’s tome on Trek writing in “The World of Star Trek” – he always emphasized how something as ambitious as the Enterprise, space would be at a premium. Efficient use of space wouldn’t just be a nice design element, it would be absolutely essential. Yet it seems this bridge and the corridors we’ve seen so far are big enough to host a pizza party. Even the transporter set seems too big.

Now, as I said, this is more of an observation than any big criticism. The movie looks fun, and I can’t believe how many “non-Trekkers” seem not just interested in the movie, but downright stoked. Not even when TMP hit the screens in 1979 have I seen this kind of interest in a Trek movie.

It’ll be fun, and I can’t wait to see how it all unfolds.

312. Dennis Bailey - March 11, 2009

#255: “Dennis is an onetime TNG writer, a critic on this site (my favourite actually: his reviews have a great sense of humour and are suitably irreverent, yet respectful!) He also makes the Starship Exeter web series.”

This does not mean that Dennis necessarily knows what he is talking about or that Dennis is not an a–hole. Despite the fact that either or both are often true, Dennis soldiers on without much trouble and with an annoying tendency to speak of himself in the third person.

313. Cafe 5 - March 11, 2009

The main reason I want Abrams version to succeed is that it will allow Star Trek to continue. I may not like certain set designs, or changes to characters I watched or read about for many years, or a new Enterprise….but if this film works and I truly hope it does, then we’ll have more movies and perhaps even a new television series to look forward too. Ideas that started with Roddenberry
will make for good story telling for many years to come……….And The Human Adventure Continues.

314. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - March 11, 2009

#312

Speaking of Exeter……

Dennis?

315. Phil - March 11, 2009

Oh, good lord…who let the whiners back in the room…..

I love the Enterprise in all her incarnations, but get a grip, folks. Any spaceship with a similar design would curl up in a ball when the engines kicked in. The stuff NASA does is what space travel will look like, never what was and will be seen in Trek. Also, keep in mind for interior design, the comment about handholds in the event of zero gravity is nonsense. Even under impulse power, graviety disappearing for even a fraction of a second leaves the entire crew, and anything else nothing more then grease spots on the wall. The movie will stand on the strength of the story.

Just relax, and enjoy the show..

316. Dennis Bailey - March 11, 2009

#314: “Speaking of Exeter……

Dennis?”

Barring unforeseeable last-minute difficulties, a few months more.

317. THX-1138-The Horn Xpressionist - March 11, 2009

#316

Damn those unforeseeable last-minute difficulties! I cast thee out! And wait patiently for a few months more.

318. DesiluTrek - March 11, 2009

The original series had an incredibly consistent color palette that helped give Star Trek its cohesiveness and believability. The new movie’s color palette is all over the place, and the lack of consistency hurts.

In the original, black was the canvas that held together the entire look, with a lot of primary colors in the mix (to sell color TVs) making for a great contrast against it. Black collar, pants and boots; black control panels; black-dominated props; black chair cushions. Multicolored readouts and uniform tunics. Gray (a shade of black) as a background color, for ships’ exteriors and interiors. It made it all look like it was of a piece, and believable. To this day, there is nothing dated about any of that.

(There wasn’t enough black in TMP either because Robert Wise thought the original uniforms would be too loud for a movie screen. Part of what was gratifying about TWOK was the return of uniforms that included black pants and boots! Also, the bridge built for TVH and in TUC bears a greater resemblance to the TOS bridge than its movie predecessor largely because there is a lot more black!)

The original uniforms have been adapted for the new movie, with their black collar, pants and boots, but they are placed in a ship setting and paired with props that don’t coordinate and feel incongruous. There doesn’t appear to be a consistent color scheme. To my eye, because the overall look lacks cohesion, it’s not nearly as believable as the 23rd century was envisioned in 1966!

319. Dom - March 11, 2009

Unfortunately there has always been a degree of vitriol in fan circles, made worse in the last decade or so by the likes of Ain’t It Cool allowing effectively unmoderated talkbacks and horrid, tasteless, hyperbolically offensive statements proliferating like ‘[George Lucas] raped my childhood!’

I don’t really get the negativity aimed at this film. I mean, maybe a few TNG diehards had issues with a lack of Nemesis follow-up, but I think most of TNG fans appreciated that Nemesis had underperformed both critically and commercially and that there had been a general consensus for some time that the production team were somewhat entrenched and needed freshening up, so even if some of the TNG cast had been retained, radical change was likely! At this point the only other rumour had been a Rick Berman-produced post-Enterprise war movie.

I was very surprised that there were TOS fans spitting poison. I remember the morning I read that JJ Abrams and his team had been offered Trek. I was thrilled, thinking ‘Wow! I really like Lost and Alias, so I wonder what they can do with Trek!’ and assumed they might try to amp up the TNG films a bit, even if the cast was getting a bit old!

Having got that far into the article, I was already pleased. What made my heart jump then was when the article said it was likely to be a new Kirk/Spock/McCoy adventure. I mean, after years of TOS being laughed at, even by a lot of Trek fans, sadly, I had accepted that it had been pretty much ‘Time at the bar!’ for the original characters in 1991.

And perhaps this sums up the difference in attitude between fans who feel they own a thing and fans who like a thing: i didn’t think ‘What the hell are they going to do with Star Trek?’ All I could think was: ‘Wow! We’re getting a new Kirk, Spock and McCoy adventure!’

I honestly thought that I would never see these characters onscreen in an official production again, given there had been a precedent set to move on to different ships/space stations and crews. I still feel that joy now! It’s like reuniting with old friends and discovering you still get along!

Given we have a new cast (and, as a first in 11 movies, a younger-than-middle-aged cast!) I anticipated n enormous overhaul of designs and characters.

In fact, things have been far less radical than one might have thought. I mean, look at the Enterprise design for the new film, then compare it with some of the stuff for the hypothetical early 1970s films, which would have been far more radical. They’ve even kept crewmembers the same sex: I’d fully expected one of Sulu or Chekov to be recast as a female role. And the uniforms are TOS uniforms with more detailed fabric: a necessity for a big-screen movie and Blu-ray viewings on an HD TV.

End of the day, we have what seemed unthinkable after Nemesis crashed and burned (and Enterprise sputtered out of existence to the indifference pretty much everyone): a new Star Trek adventure with the characters that inspired people to join the space program and to write science fiction stories themselves.

If just one youngster sees this film and feels compelled to join the space program or get into astronomy or write sci-fi novels, then it’s all worth it. As it stands, this looks like a film that can inspire us all.

We just have to let of our preconceptions and our hang ups and let the film take us on the adventure of a lifetime!

320. McCoy - March 11, 2009

No offense to anyone, but knowing someone that worked on the film, visiting the set or even knowing the story soften’s the impact of the designs. Everything grows on you with repeated exposure. The true measure is usually the initial response.

The fact remains that at least 1/2 of the design work was already done for this film before Chamblis took the task. All he had to was update an existing property. No need to start from scratch. Of course we can read above that he and JJ added other considerations into the mix.

There was a real desire by many to escape back into the TOS world. Or at least revisit it. That will not be happening with this film of course. If all the changes to the TOS visuals are explained in the story then the problem started with the script.

321. Aaron R. - March 11, 2009

Sooooo disappointed… So let down… So disgusted…. So saddened…

No not by the designs… I think they are awesome and beautiful.

I am disappointed by all the people in here bashing and whining and complaining. You really are the reasons Trek has a stigma and fans have a stereotype. Saddens me so much…

On top of all this after reading about 200 comments and giving up no one seems even remotely appreciative that the man did this interview at all. He didn’t have to by any means. He could have said frak it and I will let my work stand for itself and not make any comments or interviews. We should be happy to have the man telling us the thought process and what was going on in the creative process.

Lastly this is for no one because no one will like read this far down but please consider the following.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON ANYTHING RELATED TO STAR TREK! You do not need to insist that your view is almighty and powerful and the only one out there good or bad. And, you most certainly are NOT permitted to speak about every age group as if you’re an expert. I am in my mid 20’s and don’t appreciate inferences made by older patrons of the site about the younger generation. I would never swoop in and say a broad based comment about the older generation that was derogatory why would you come in and say something about mine. That is not only un-intelligible but also rude and hurtful. Think about your comments about people of different ages before you type them. Think about your words in general before you type them for your words are tarnish on your own person and harmful towards Star Trek and Trekkies everywhere who get slapped with the stigma created by zealous fans.

322. Scott B. here. - March 11, 2009

Re: 257 (and others) – I wouldn’t argue that the new movie ship and the interiors needed to be slavish copies of the ’60s designs, as fun as that would be for me personally. I merely think that they’ve strayed too far from the source.

Those who say “Trek looks forward” are ignoring the fact that this movie itself is dipping into Trek’s past . I don’t blame them for going back to the Kirk era — the first version of Star Trek has power and appeal. A big part of that appeal to me (a graphic designer and illustrator) is the bold visual statement it made. It’s my personal feeling that the new design choices aren’t capturing the essential visual nature of that first (and to me, best) Star Trek. There’s too much “fixing” and “improvement” — just re-read Scott Chambliss’s statements above. He clearly was fighting the original look of Star Trek as hard as he could.

I’ll explain my feelings with a pretty good analogy: The original Mustang design in the mid-60s was an instant classic. The Ford designers lost their way for about three decades, only finally returning the car to its original roots in recent years. It’s “new and improved” but darn it if it doesn’t look like a 21st century Mustang should look. That’s how they should have approached the new design of the original world of Star Trek (IMHO).

Chris Doohan has been kind enough to post his view that the design makes sense within the context of the story. I live in hope that he is correct.

Scott B. out.

323. FranBro - March 11, 2009

“One of the problems with the old show is that they had no budget and everything is made out of cardboard; it felt like a soapbox derby in outer space…”

No vitriol here. I just think it’s a bit insulting to just dismiss the original sets as “cardboard”. Yes, maybe they had a modest budget but AFAIK, the bridge was very competently and solidly built as were most of at least the enterprise sets. That comment is either a bit snarky or his just plain ignorant. Either way it was unnecessary and can leave a bitter taste in some fans mouths who really appreciate the original and the craftsmen for all the work they did.

324. Scott B. here. - March 11, 2009

Re: #318 DesiluTrek – Excellent post! I agree with everything you wrote.

Scott B. out.

325. redbellpeppers - March 11, 2009

Ya know, I don’t see “optimism” reflected in the art design. I see extravagance. I see excesses. I see a bloated governmental entity that spared no expense- at the expense of the peoples.

Personal taste- only a few elements of the new Enterprise I do like. Don’t like the bridge- way too bright reeking of governmental excess. I do like the transporter room tho.

Sorry Doohan- just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean mi mind isn’t open. On the contrary, I believe that my assessment is quite open minded.

Optimism is found in attitudes of individuals, and no curvature of steel can reflect that.

326. 1701 over Gotham City - March 11, 2009

I still don’t agree 100% with the aesthetics of the ship… or the clothing. The little delta design all over the fabric seems…well, really silly hollywood fad. And makes it look more hollywood and less uniform.

I still feel some little aspects of color and streamlining could have been done on the bridge. At least make the railing red. What’s wrong with that? I agree with 322. Too far removed… the costumes look oddly nostalgic compared to the audacious new designs of the ship interiors.

and the new phaser is hideous and (don’t mean to pun) illogical. a rotating barrel??? it LOOKS like a toy. at least the original looked like a device that served a working function.

I realize that the story explains many of the changes… but explanation or not, faithful or not… some of this is unattractive and looks unneeded. Anyways, I’ll look forward to it, just cautiously.

Oh, and as far as people remaining faithful to what has come before… I say again that if a film designer was to step in and redesign Darth Vader and the Millenium Falcon we would go into World War Three.

327. Selor - March 11, 2009

“and the new phaser is hideous and (don’t mean to pun) illogical. a rotating barrel???”

Just as the first Laser/Phaser from the Cage… back then the barrel was rotated vertically, now just horizontally…

328. Dennis Bailey - March 11, 2009

#313:”The main reason I want Abrams version to succeed is that it will allow Star Trek to continue. I may not like certain set designs, or changes to characters I watched or read about for many years, or a new Enterprise….but if this film works and I truly hope it does, then we’ll have more movies and perhaps even a new television series to look forward too”

Yep, that’s the bottom line.

There was incredible negativity in fandom toward ST:TMP when it came out. Every bit of “Star Trek” production for the last thirty years, however, is a direct result of that film being made. And on any given day, you can go into Internet Trek forums and find topics where *thirty years later* people are still picking apart and complaining about the things they didn’t like in ST:TMP.

It will be the same with this movie – ten years from now fans may be all excited about some movie or TV series based on “Star Trek,” and the same people will still be dissing the creative decisions made on this film – but those hypothetical TV shows and movies will still owe their existence to Abrams and company jump-starting a dead Franchise and getting it profitable again.

Oh, and by the by – I really don’t like a lot of the production design of this movie either, especially the interior sets of the Enterprise. If I were a wee bit crankier I might even use the “s-word.” That said, I didn’t like the ST:TMP sets either…but I sure did like a lot of the design that would follow TMP during the 1980s. :-)

329. Dr. Image - March 11, 2009

Sigh.
Why is there always this talk of people “spitting poison?”
I and most everyone here agree that the film will no doubt be fantastic.

This is a seperate and distinct issue from the DESIGN aspects which many have pointed out are disappointing- the E and bridge, primarily.

I wish more could seperate the two, because it’s not ALL bad!

It’s just a shame that these designs were not more carefully thought out, for reasons many above have stated.

For example #318: “The original uniforms have been adapted for the new movie, with their black collar, pants and boots, but they are placed in a ship setting and paired with props that don’t coordinate and feel incongruous.”

That’s the kind of thing that’s glaringly annoying to many, but that does NOT mean the movie will suck.

330. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2009

326. Selor: “Just as the first Laser/Phaser from the Cage… back then the barrel was rotated vertically, now just horizontally…”

Actually, the Cage phaser barrel was rotated longitudinally, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the gimmicky toy-like horizontally rotating barrel. This also gave more than just two settings.

331. Dennis Bailey - March 11, 2009

#330:”Actually, the Cage phaser barrel was rotated longitudinally, which makes a hell of a lot more sense than the gimmicky toy-like horizontally rotating barrel. This also gave more than just two settings.”

Did it “make more sense?” Funny, it looked silly to me in 1967. Toy-like, even. ;-)

332. Selor - March 11, 2009

@330
It does not make more sense than having the main Stun/Kill Setting changed via rotating Barrel… and how do you know that there are no more buttons and things to change the power output?

333. Lord Garth, Formerly of Izar - March 11, 2009

Hey Bailey I’m dying to see engineering, have you seen anything on it? is the Budweiser brewery tanks and machinery what we will be seeing??

Stay tuned

I too do not like the overall production design thus far. I like certain elements but not the overall package. My main beef is with the secondary hull of the ship and the pylons. But I do like a number of elements, they just don’t flow together too me. Don’t think I will be changing my opinion about the Ship but maybe the sets will grow on me on the big screen.

Open the Pod Bay Doors Hal

334. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2009

318. DesiluTrek: “The original series had an incredibly consistent color palette that helped give Star Trek its cohesiveness and believability.”

“In the original, black was the canvas that held together the entire look…”

“The original uniforms have been adapted for the new movie, with their black collar, pants and boots, but they are placed in a ship setting and paired with props that don’t coordinate and feel incongruous.”

WELL SAID! Full Agreement!

335. Dom - March 11, 2009

I think it’s worth remembering that there’s a line somewhere in the film about the Enterprise being brand new. Maybe it’s all white because not all the panels have been fitted yet and not all of it’s been painted yet. At the end or in a sequel, lots of bits and pieces could be closer to the original look.

Remember, in The Cage, Chris Pike’s Enterprise didn’t have any of the familiar colour scheme either, not to mention bigger nacelles and a bigger deflector dish.

336. CaptainRickover - March 11, 2009

My feelings, when it was anounced, that JJ & Co. came aboard was more like: “Great names with their own ideas. Now we get an entire reboot”. I was concerend from the very beginning, because I heard what JJ had planned once for Superman and that sounded dreadful.

I have nothing against an entire reboot, like BSG, starting with Kirk, Spock & Co from the beginning, change everything, make it great and cool.

BUT: I’m a fan of the “Prime universe”, maybe a die-hard-fan. So, if one producer promised, the story will fit with the other Star Trek-stories and it’s continuity and canon, then I expect a “Prime universe” story – and not a “Thank’s-of-timetravel-Quantum-physics-changend-everything-action-adventure”. I feel – for a certain degree- tricked.

Honestly, I wouldn’t like to see the TOS-design on the big screen. The people would run away, left only the die-hard TOS-fans in the cinema. The movie might made 20 mil. $ worldwide and that wouldn’t be good at all.

So, I was prepared for some changes. New uniforms, new phasers, new communicators, a new bridge, new transporter room, new engine room. Everything updated and high-tech, more fitting for a ship from the 25th century – but recognizable as part of the existing universe, a design that predates all the things in TOS, like Star Wars 1 – 3 do on it’s own strange way to Star Wars 4 – 6 (you know, looking far more advanced, but you can see what it will become).

Then, the first picture of the bridge was revealed and the shock hit me hard. An apple-bridge! Lights everywhere and for me, this bridge might be some bridge of starfleet somewhere in the 26th century. Nothing was recognizable and nothing seems to serve for any purpose. That abomination should predates the TOS-bridge? If all the guys wouldn’t wear starfleet uniforms, that bridge could be from any new sc-fi-movie, even from Galaxy-Quest 2 (a great movie BTW).

That was not all: The new Enterprise was revealed and the next shock hit me. That ship could be never, never be the TOS-Enterprise. The dimensions are wrong, completly wrong. That thing could never become refitted into the beloved original-Enterprise. Then the different levels of technology aboard the Enterprise were described and I really asked me: Are the uniforms the only good looking thing in that movie? At last, the communicators look right and the handphasers too. But that are so small things, hardly recognizable. Are that the only bones the TPTB throw to us fans (besides from mentioning Archer’s beamed-to-death beagle) ?

The new trailer was exiting, promising an epic adventure (with hopefully a positive and optimistic finale with everything right at the end) but I’m still concerned. The production design IS terrible (in my eyes). The Enterprise don’t look like a ship I would want to life on for the next five years. Everything’s white, shiny, everywhere are little lights, plastic and steel. It might look cool for today, but it has nothing in common with all previous trek. I’m hoping (and it is very likley) that the bridge and everything else will be changend for the next movie.

337. sean - March 11, 2009

All you folks talking about a ‘white bridge’ really, REALLY need to look more carefully. When I look at the bridge, I see white, sure, but I also see blue displays, red chairs, orange floors, gray walls and black chairs. There are plenty of colors present that are not white.

Additionally, whoever was speaking to function earlier and the handrails on the TMP bridge – are you not looking front-and-center at the helm? Because I see handrails. Besides, the ‘pointy’ workstations from TOS would certainly pose a risk should the crew be buffeted around during a pesky Romulan attack! ;)

338. RAMA - March 11, 2009

#135 You’re completely right, the bridge, ship and overall design pretty much look like Star Trek to anyone EXCEPT those who have been steeped in the tech of ST all these years. There’s also a sub-faction who think the movie should STILL look like the 1960s show, despite all obvious common sense to the contrary. So they should probably pull the heads out of their asses and just watch the movie for what it is: a new take on an old subject. Production design is important but ultimately just supports the rest of the movie.

339. CaptainRickover - March 11, 2009

# 335

The nacelles were the same, only the aft-end was different. The deflector dish was indeed a bit bigger and not golden like the later one. The brigde was bigger too, with additional windows/lights/markings and there were some black panels on the edges of the saucer.

But if you want to imply, that the design of the interior will be changing later in the new movie, I think you are mistaken. It would be great to see – after the timeline-repairing – a more familiar design, but I don’t think so.

Despite the production design – I really don’t like – I still hope for a good movie.

340. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2009

332. Selor: “It does not make more sense than having the main Stun/Kill Setting changed via rotating Barrel… and how do you know that there are no more buttons and things to change the power output?”

From what we can see, there is a “thumb switch” for rotating the barrel (stun/kill), and a “trigger switch” for firing. No other controls are apparent.

Longitudinal rotation makes WAY more sense because the barrel never goes “off-axis”, and it allows infinite adjustability. Whereas with horizontal rotation you only get two settings, not to mention a host of practicality / reliability problems…

341. The Jui$tain - March 11, 2009

Well, white is used by NASA. (If you haven’t noticed, from the 60’s to now just about everything has been white, the rockets, shuttle, space station, etc.) It’s the cheapest color to paint with, it hides dirt better than black, and is an all around ‘clean’ color.

So from a realistic point of view I can understand why he went for white as well as stainless steel. Seeing as both NASA and Starfleet are focused mainly on exploration as well as scientific research. :-)

I like the original E as much as the next Trekkie, but there had to be change or Star Trek would die. If you can draw in a new crowd of people and get them curious about ST, then they have so much to satisfy their curiosity, with TOS all the way to ENT as well as countless books and games.

But the trick is to get non-Trekkies interested in ST, so I can see why they changed what they did.

However, I am glad that there are Trekkies on this site that give their opinions in a respectful manner and provide an explanation as to why they don’t like something, unlike some. But to those Trekkies, I thank you.

Respectfully yours,
*J

342. Dennis Bailey - March 11, 2009

#336:”Lights everywhere and for me, this bridge might be some bridge of starfleet somewhere in the 26th century. ”

It’s all a made-up future. There’s no necessary difference between the 23rd or the 25th or the 29th century except what the designers decide there is.

343. RAMA - March 11, 2009

I wouldn’t have designed the bridge exactly as it is now in its details, but I have no problems with its form. Its really not all that different. I honestly am glad they didn’t make it look like something from Aliens. I give high kudos for using a bright, hi-tech design.

344. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2009

325. redbellpeppers: ” Ya know, I don’t see “optimism” reflected in the art design. I see extravagance. I see excesses. I see a bloated governmental entity that spared no expense- at the expense of the peoples.”

WOW. You really do see EVERYTHING through the same partisan polarized prism, don’t you?

“Don’t like the bridge- way too bright reeking of governmental excess.”

DITTO (head)

“Optimism is found in attitudes of individuals, and no curvature of steel can reflect that.”

Among other things, you need to study a little bit of art and design before you make uninformed statements like that.

345. Scott B. here. - March 11, 2009

Re: the phaser design.

The Cage laser was pretty cool. The manually rotating barrel was an awesome feature, no doubt. But the weapon itself did look like a direct descendent of a Flash Gordon ray gun. So …

We got the OS phaser. What a unique design, with the pop-out hand phaser, and the mid-mounted pistol grip/power pack. Again, simply beautiful & wonderfully functional.

The new design with the rotating barrel is, a non-starter. Imagine you’re on a planet in the midst of a sandstorm. Fine grit gunks up the automatic rotator cuff. Now your choices are: A) don’t change your setting, even though the primitive Sandmen are starting to kill your redshirts B) manually try to rotate the dang thing, risking accidentally shooting your hand off in the process or C) get to shelter and clean out your rotational servo before going back out in the field. I guess in the 23rd century, such worries are a thing of the past. However …

Does anyone remember the Entertainment Weekly article (IIRC) where a take was ruined because Chris Pine’s phaser refused to rotate properly? I rest my case. :-)

Scott B. out.

346. kmart - March 11, 2009

261,

But that wasn’t what you said in your post. Don’t invoke Campbell like it is a given, then backtrack and tthen alk about Campbell being influenced by earlier folks who also influenced Trek people. I mean, c’mon, Jung? Jung influences EVERYBODY, that’s like saying Henry Ford influenced Gene R because he built cars and GR drove one.

347. kmart - March 11, 2009

270,

ILM’s design work in SFS did as much to damage TREK as the worst of Bennett’s writing.Except for the BOP, I find all of their trek designs, from dogs to worms to that moronic spacedock, utterly worthless and totally off-kilter from what had gone before. You can say that MIke MInor’s designs were MAYBE a little cheesey, but they had heart and looked a lot more appropriate. I wish ILM hadn’t trashed his concept for the Edencave in TWOK.

348. McCoy - March 11, 2009

Star Trek was not dead…it was in an inevitable resting mode after the likes of Voyager but especially Enterprise. It will never die. Enterprise grabbed the “get in a ship and go somewhere” formula and burnt most of us out. We were ripe for a new Trek platform—Enterprise was more of the same. In fact, the only real difference between Enterprise and this movie is the money spent.

This film is more about the desires of Paramount and the production team than Trek fandom.

349. kmart - March 11, 2009

264,

While ILM used a lot of miniatures, they were shot using HD cameras, which do a less than ideal job of capturing scale objects. Also, like most places they render at 2k, which is a lot less than film resolution. So regardless of whether they shoot miniatures or originate on digital, the stuff just doesn’t look as good as miniatures shot on film, because you’ve already sabotaged yourself by limiting to 2k. This is what screws up a lot of fx shots in the last 10=15 years, that you shoot the miniature well, but then scan at 2k and it winds up looking digital, lacking dynamic range (usually bad highlights and mushy blacks.)

By way of comparison, you can look at Cinesite’s spaceship stuff in SOLARIS. Even though it is CG, it looks more like a good miniature, because it was all done at 4K, from much higher level maps, and was done with skill and care. I prefer miniiatures greatly in nearly all cases, but until they can be imaged and rendered properly, you might as well CG everything, because it is going to look like crap or at best mediocre no matter what you start with.

350. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2009

Star Trek WAS dead. “Nemesis” killed it, and the “Enterprise” theme song pissed on it’s grave.

This movie WILL resurrect Trek!!!

Trek is dead! Long Live Trek!!

351. CaptainRickover - March 11, 2009

# 350

and what was with Star Trek – Remastered?

352. Christine - March 11, 2009

“…It’s suggested that optimism from a design standpoint means something sleeker and “cleaner” looking than, perhaps, vessels from the Star Wars universe. …”

Haha, it was coming. It was coming. xD And I’m happy it did.
I love the Millenium Falcon and the Death Star just as much as any ‘Wars fanboy, but even they gotta admit: They were a lot more industrial and not nearly as aesthetically pleasing as the starships of ‘Trek. (Besides, some of them were REALLY cramped; practically the size of shuttlecrafs. xP)

“Star Trek WAS dead. “Nemesis” killed it, and the “Enterprise” theme song pissed on it’s grave….”

Aw. D: Am I the only person who liked Nemesis and absolutely ADORES “Faith of the Heart”? That song is freakin’ inspiring!

And I must say: “Enterprise” I think did the best job on details of the ships… Especially during the Xindi Arc, they did a good job making the NX-01 look beat up and “running out of gas”, per se.

353. SChaos1701 - March 11, 2009

95

You’re wrong. The Marine Corps Combat Utility Uniform has the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor throughout.

354. Dennis Bailey - March 11, 2009

#348:”It will never die.”

Bet? LOL

355. I am not Herbert - March 11, 2009

351. CaptainRickover: “and what was with(sic) Star Trek – Remastered?”

A beautiful remembrance of, and tribute to, our beloved departed when it was young and vibrant.

356. BK613 - March 11, 2009

323
“Yes, maybe they had a modest budget”

For those that don’t know according to “Inside Star Trek” (ISBN-10: 078816015X), the TOS budget was as follows:

The Cage…………$600,000 (adjusted for 2009: $4,021,771.43)
Season one………$260,000 per episode (adjusted for 2009: $1,694,357.41)
Season two………$218,000 per episode (adjusted for 2009: $1,378,118.98)
Season three……$175,000 per episode (adjusted for 2009: $1,061,782.33)
(calculations using http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm )

Compare that to Bonanza for the same three years:
1966……………..$163,000 per episode
1967……………..$181.600 per episode
1968……………..$188,900 per episode
From this site: http://ponderosascenery.homestead.com/costs.html

Truth is, television technology was primitive and that accounts for the looks of the show. There were no computers, no easy way to composite film, and the sea change that was 2001: ASO wouldn’t happen until the middle of TOS’s run.

So call it crude if you want, call it primitive, but cheesy and cheap it wasn’t.

357. kmart - March 11, 2009

356,
I don’t know where you got 260K per show in season 1, but it is off by at least 70 grand. While there were a couple eps that went into the two hundreds, almost all came in around 180 or 190 (and that is in the book you mention and about a zillion other places.

Plus Desilu had ENORMOUS overhead, so perhaps a good chunk of the budget actually got swallowed up on that.

If you figure how much of TOS budget went to opticals, it was many times what was spent on TNG (TNG’s budget for vfx was well under 10% of its total, whereas TOS spent huge amounts, just due to the limitations of the time.)

358. James Cawley - March 11, 2009

#307- I am working on it.

359. John Trumbull - March 11, 2009

“One of the problems with the old show is that they had no budget and everything is made out of cardboard; it felt like a soapbox derby in outer space…”

I’ll reserve final judgement on the new sets until I see the actual film, but it’s REALLY disappointing to see the production designer of a multimillion dollar motion picture perpetuate these tired old myths. You’re telling us that they didn’t have the sense to build sets out of plywood in the 1960s?

I agree with Robert Meyer Burnett, Give me Matt Jefferies’ creative, aviation-inspired designs any day.

360. JT - March 11, 2009

The sets fron TOS were built out of plywood!

361. AJ - March 11, 2009

356/7

I would guess that much of the $600k cited in that book went into props and constructions which were re-used later on. The E, all sets, etc.

Also, Jeffrey Hunter was a well-known movie actor and must have commanded a pretty penny. If Desilu was hiding HQ overheads in its series. or simply dividing them amongst its various projects, it would explain the discrepancy between kmart’s numbers and those in “Inside Star Trek.”

I remember reading that Star Trek was the most expensive show on TV during its run.

362. JT - March 11, 2009

318and 334 I totally agree

363. doubting thomas - March 11, 2009

120

“Just because WE’RE all into the “retro scifi” thing doesn’t mean the vast moviegoing public is. Simply modernizing the TOS sets like Mirror Darkly did wouldn’t have been nearly enough.”

that’s exactly my point. i am not into “retro sci fi”, i find it boring and bland. but i find nothing retro about the production design of the original series. if they did the bridge as it was in “the cage”, a little roomier, and took out the desk lamp things, there would be nothing “retro” about it. even the colours added for the series aren’t too out of place. they just need to change the inner workings and circuits to look futuristic whenever they show them.

star trek does not look old, it looks futuristic. “updating” it and “bringing it into the 21st century” is a 200 year downgrade

364. Christine - March 11, 2009

Okay, guys, quit hatin’ on Chambliss for a poor choice of words. I think all he was really saying is that everyone in the crew just wanted to bring the old ’60’s style we all know and love into the 21st century. I wasn’t around that long ago, granted (I was born in 1993), and I do love TOS, but it was about time for a technical facelift. Personally, I think the sets look a wee bit busy, but they’re flashy. They really look like they belong on a starship — a starship LIKE the Enterprise.

Get my drift?

365. tman - March 11, 2009

I can’t believe people are debating the Phaser from the Cage vs. Phaser from this movie. Both of them pail in comparison to Jeffries’ design for the rest of TOS.

Jeffries design of the Phaser II was a heck of a lot more credible than the new films’ glowing rotating things. This Phaser looks more descendent from Flash Gordon than Jeffries design…

Jeffries took the modern pistol, thought about how you would distribute the mass above the handle if you didn’t need an elongated barrel and put a credible looking emitter at the end. The fact that Phaser I and II are both deadly is hinted by the clearly embedded Phaser I in the the Phaser II design. And the Black color of the Phaser matches well with the color of the uniform.

I don’t understand the rotating barrel, if it’s a filter, I don’t understand why it should need to be so big. Otherwise, I see no credible reason for that design and the symmetry of the emitter on TOS made to me a much cleaner image.

366. doubting thomas - March 11, 2009

128

“Not only is ‘In A Mirror, Darkly’ a very MOR episode of Star Trek, it features some truly ham-filled acting and a Velociraptor Gorn that looked worse than the guy in the rubber suit with visible zipper! I know some fans seem to hold IAMD up as some kind of holy grail, but honestly it’s a rather painful thing for me to sit through. Bakula makes Shatner look restrained and subtle! :)”

i am not talking about acting. i think they went with a terrible cast on that series. with the exceptions of phlox and tucker, none of them should even have become actors. bad career move on their part.

i’m talking about how they involved original series element without ever thinking “boy this crap is old”. they took it seriously and it worked. the defiant was a believable ship.

“Seriously guys, you’re telling me the engine room set in TMP bears *any* resemblance to the TOS set?”

it was mentioned in a next generation episode that warp coils were invented around that time. the ships captained by archer and pike did not have them. they installed one during the refit.

“How about Klingons growing ridges?”

you mean growing the ridges roddenberry wanted in the first place?

“Come on, there were times the good old Doc was passing salt shakers over his patients!”

those weren’t salt shakers. for one thing, they had motors in them moving a reflective peice around. diamond select’s releasing replicas next month.

367. doubting thomas - March 11, 2009

364

“I think all he was really saying is that everyone in the crew just wanted to bring the old ’60’s style we all know and love into the 21st century.”

that’s the goram problem! he’s bringing the 2260s style that worked so well back to an apple inspired 2000s style! that’s regress!

“They really look like they belong on a starship”

they look like they belong on a cruise ship. perfect for 24th century style, looks like it would follow from the starship prometheus seen on voyager. but doesn’t fit the technological progression from enterprise to next gen, whereas the original does. archer’s ship was built like a submarine, pike’s like a frigate, picard’s like a luxury yaght. oddly enough, the kelvin seems to fit perfectly in the progression in every way, but for some reason they decided the enterprise, and the entire show it seems, was old and crappy and needed to be fixed with a ground-up resesign and a divergent timeline. they saw the original series as that irreparable.

when contributing to or remaking a film or tv franchise, it should be done out of love for the original. this movie is done out of dislike of the original.it’s shameful. they should have gotten the wachowski brothers to do this movie.

368. Dennis Bailey - March 11, 2009

#367:”he’s bringing the 2260s style that worked so well back to an apple inspired 2000s style! ”

It wasn’t a 2260s style – no one knows what a 2260s style will look like. It was a 1960s style, and it does not look in any way futuristic now.

369. Jesse - March 11, 2009

I would probably be most happy if the original bridge had been carefully reconstructed with modern materials (like in the Enterprise mirror universe episode), but if I was designing for this new movie, that probably isn’t what I would do, for the sake of new fans.
I would have the bridge much smaller than the new one, about the same size as the TMP bridge (which was a bit larger than the original if i’m not mistaken), with colors that closely match those of the original. The computers would be updated as needed and the viewscreen would be large, like TMP. The new bridge has some extra consoles basically in “the middle of nowhere,” and glass panels like the Enterprise in TNG:Parallels, or Echo Base from The Empire Strikes Back. Those would have no place in my Star Trek universe.
Obviously my vision of Star Trek is not that of J.J. Abrams (and I can’t change that), but I plan on watching the new Star Trek and I hope to enjoy it. If it’s good, I may just “get over it.” Besides, he’s a pro, and I’m just a whiny fan.

370. The Governator - March 11, 2009

363. doubting thomas

Wow, IMHO, you are soooooo wrong. TOS does not look futuristic. Ask anybody that is outside of the fan base. I’m sure they will agree. It seems to me that you have been looking at those TOS designs a little to long. Try a fresh pair of glasses.

371. Alex Rosenzweig - March 11, 2009

#319 – “I was very surprised that there were TOS fans spitting poison.”

I’ll freely admit, when it was first announced that the new film would be a TOS origin story, and everybody from Abrams to Nimoy promised us that it wouldn’t be a story that would shred continuity, I was bouncing off the walls excited. TOS coming back, and on the big screen? Cool!! I knew up-front that obviously it’d be recast, and that there’d be a fair amount of visual redesigning to make it all work, and I was okay with that.

It wasn’t until they started tap-dancing around the whole continuity issue, and then started all this “‘alternate universe” stuff, that the joy started to drain away. When it came to going back to TOS, I was okay with recasting, accepting of redesign, fully understanding that it wasn’t going to look or feel just like TOS itself. I only had a single line in the sand…just one: don’t throw out the continuity (literally, functionally, whatever ;) ). Guess which line it sure looks like they’re hell-bent on crossing? ;)

I freely admit it’s my bias, but as a fan not only of TOS as a story of a group of people, but also of the world of Star Trek, once it became clear that the “origin story” was going to be disconnected on some level from that world, it no longer was functioning as a source of excitement for me. Now I’m not quite sure what to feel, and that sort of makes me sad. I know a lot of folks checked out with “Enterprise”, but for me, this film may be the first one that I say, “Nope, not a part of Trek I actually care about now.”

Of course, the film might also prove me wrong, so check back with me in May. ;)

#336 – “BUT: I’m a fan of the “Prime universe”, maybe a die-hard-fan. So, if one producer promised, the story will fit with the other Star Trek-stories and it’s continuity and canon, then I expect a “Prime universe” story – and not a “Thank’s-of-timetravel-Quantum-physics-changend-everything-action-adventure”. I feel – for a certain degree- tricked.”

Nicely put. That does speak for me, as well. I read all those interviews about how the movie would take advantage of the gaps in the backstory and would be true to continuity and how the “Supreme Court” would have to resolve some of the internal contradictions in TOS so they could get the story told, and I trusted them. Maybe that was foolish or naive of me, but I did. And I also feel like maybe that trust was misplaced.

#354 – “#348:”It will never die.”

Bet? LOL”

The only problem with that bet, Dennis, is that the only way for the counter to the above statement to win out, we all have to be no longer caring, coming to sites like Anthony’s, or talking about Trek. So how would you collect? ;)

372. Christine - March 11, 2009

“…Not only is ‘In A Mirror, Darkly’ a very MOR episode of Star Trek, it features some truly ham-filled acting and a Velociraptor Gorn that looked worse than the guy in the rubber suit with visible zipper! ….”

Hey, hey, I thought the Gorn in “In a Mirror, Darkly” looked really good. I was much more impressed in that than in “Arena”, thank-you-very-much.

“…i think they went with a terrible cast on that series. with the exceptions of phlox and tucker, none of them should even have become actors. …”

I must disagree. I thought the majority of the cast did an excellent job. Besides, Scott Bakula’s the bomb, just as he was in “Quantum Leap”!

“…when contributing to or remaking a film or tv franchise, it should be done out of love for the original. this movie is done out of dislike of the original…..”

I must disagree. And none of us have seen the movie, so we won’t KNOW, now, will we? But, from what I’ve seen, this movie WAS done because of respect for the original series. Otherwise, they would’ve done TNG or something.

“….Wow, IMHO, you are soooooo wrong. TOS does not look futuristic. Ask anybody that is outside of the fan base. I’m sure they will agree….”

I think it was the very best they could do almost 45 years ago. The first time I saw TOS (maybe less than a year ago), I was kinda like, “Wow, this is cheesy.” But this is the girl who’s grown up with her Heroes, 4400, Dead Zone, Kyle XY etc. etc.. insert-more-21st-century-shows-here. Now, of course, I have a deep respect for the emotional and psychological aspects of the show.

But, yes, to someone unfamiliar to the series, it’s just William Shatner and his overexaggerated acting, and… Spock. And some other guys in tight uniforms and girls in miniskirts.

“..I know a lot of folks checked out with “Enterprise”, but for me, this film may be the first one that I say, “Nope, not a part of Trek I actually care about now….”

I think Enterprise required a fresh mind to watch — like, uh, mine. I hadn’t been sucked into the 40-year franchise (yet) and while I was familiar with the movies and SOME of TOS, I still adored (and adore) ENT.
(Besides, I always thought Trip was cute. ‘Specially with T’Pol. ;3)

373. Alex Rosenzweig - March 11, 2009

#370 – “Wow, IMHO, you are soooooo wrong. TOS does not look futuristic. Ask anybody that is outside of the fan base. I’m sure they will agree. It seems to me that you have been looking at those TOS designs a little to long. Try a fresh pair of glasses.”

No, TOS as it is, with no changes, looks exactly like what it is, a vision of the future as viewed through the eyes of designers in the 1960s.

But…

The part I disagree with you about is that I think those designs, at their core, were hugely solid, so that a judicious facelift, using modern set design materials, techniques, and technologies, could take those sets and make them futuristic again. They’d still look noticeably different from the original sets (and probably would still piss off the hardest-core of the purists ;) ), of that there is no doubt, but I think it could have been done so people would see both the original lines and proportions, as well as a modern look by today’s standards.

374. Darrksan - March 11, 2009

170. cinemadeus – March 11, 2009
@ Darrksan:
Witty and literate as you are, why don’t you explain how you imagine a new movie to be?

Well if I was handed Star Trek and forced to reboot it, I would study the history in the Star Trek. I would write the characters as people who are just Explorers doing their mission like TOS was written and not as Legends or Chosen Ones.

cinemadeus – You say that the first six feature films do not base upon Campbell? Analyse them again…

The first six feature films has some things based on classic writings, but so did TOS. It is not Campbell which effects The first six feature films. It is stories like Horatio Hornblower, Shakespeare and so on which effects The first six feature films and also TOS.

Campbell’s Work to me is just a rewrite of Jung’s Archetypes. I really do not want to see Kirk and Spock be made into Chosen Ones or Golden Children.

375. AJ - March 11, 2009

Alex:

What do you think of the various Bridges that have come and gone since TOS? Later series included?

Is there one you would pick for the new film, if you had to?

376. spock - March 11, 2009

This ibridge does look better than the hotel bridge on TNG. Now that was a lame design.

377. Will - March 11, 2009

re: 149. Jeff C – March 11, 2009

They are seemingly embarrassed by Star Trek as it existed. They don’t seem to like the Design sense of the old show, the events that formed the characters, the technical aspects of the shows–all the things that built up to make it come together. And they are embarrassed and constantly apologizing for the core fanbase that has supported Star Trek–to the point of going out of their way to say that they didn’t make the film for those fans–they are going for the mythic “General Audience”.

They like the name Star Trek. They like the idea of Kirk, Spock and McCoy. They like parts of various versions of the Enterprise. They like time travel. They like space battles and stunts. And lots and lots of track lighting on their bridge.

—————-

You hit the nail on the head here. It seems like he’s liked bits and pieces but always thought he knew better, as if the old Trek was an embarrassment.

Honestly, I can’t blame him, as a film maker for a major studio(even though I disagree with his choices massively), the rest of the general masses view Trek as something that Neil Goldman on Family Guy like.

I TA’d an improv acting class where-in two of the actors were ad-libbing insults to the “uncool kid” at the party, most of which were scifi related at least slightly, but somehow, though they were bashing Star Trek, they were making up some very direct attacks referencing some very specific moments of Trek.

I think that speaks to the fact that a lot of people like Trek but are afraid that people will think they’re losers.

I think that may be what JJ is afraid of. He can’t lose his “cool” factor or else he loses his market and that is how he’s started down the path of Michael Bay and Rob Cohen.

378. Jesse - March 11, 2009

Alex Rosenzweig has it right. I agree completely. The sets should be “classic” at the core, but some updates are needed. Reasonable updates, of course!

379. kmart - March 11, 2009

374

you got it so right. Explorers, people on a mission, making hard choices as a matter of course. NOT Chosen Ones.

380. Darrksan - March 11, 2009

Also cinemadeus,
Star trek already has a character which is base on the Campbell/Jung/Nietzsche Archetypes and his name is KHAN!!! The Chosen One/ Golden Child/ Übermensch Archetypes has lead to Eugenics and radical individualism. Gene Roddenberry’s work has seen Eugenics, Radical Individualism and Archetypes as bad like Khan on TOS, Nietzscheans on Andromeda and even the Borg on TNG.
On Past Star Trek, No person (or Group) in starfleet is a Chosen Ones or a Golden Child or a Übermensch.

381. Bradley1701 - March 11, 2009

#378 What is considered reasonable? Some of us think that what we have seen already is reasonable.

What others seem to want is a cookie cutter movie for nostalgic reasons. Maybe they should have had Pine act like Shatner. Maybe Uhura’s hair should have been up like it was in the series…eventually if you nitpick enough, all you get is an identical twin and that isn’t what the franchise needs. The fanbase is aging and Star Trek has to look like modern science fiction in order for it to catch the attention of young people.

382. BK613 - March 11, 2009

357
I think the costs of the shuttlecraft mock-up, WNMHGB changes and production changes are included in that figure.

383. doubting thomas - March 11, 2009

376

the design of the enterprise d’s bridge is clearly inspired by carl sagan’s “starship of the imagination”

384. The Governator - March 11, 2009

376. Spock

Agreed! TNG bridge looked like a luxury cruiser in space.

385. kmart - March 11, 2009

383
I think it is inspired by Ken Adam’s unproduced design for a traveling space fictions how from 1980. Has the horseshoe, and really resembles the earliest Proberts that have a bigger multideck feel. Look around online, or check the bookstores for the newest Adam book (It is just a few pages after Adam’s unused work for the PLANET OF TITANS STAR TREK movie that didn’t happen in the late 70s.)

386. kmart - March 11, 2009

380
Khan was originally a norse guy when Cary Wilbur wrote the first draft before Coon came in and made it work. Norse certainly does suggest mythology, I’ll certainly give you that, but mainly the genetically engineered superman is just an SF equivalent to the guy in the bible who beat up the big giant Goiiath dude.

how else do you explain beating the mythical beast with a white plastic pipe?

387. Ben IV - March 11, 2009

#321
“YOU DO NOT HAVE A MONOPOLY ON ANYTHING RELATED TO STAR TREK! You do not need to insist that your view is almighty and powerful and the only one out there good or bad.”

Not a monopoly, many of us have taste, actually. We can actually tell when something looks good and when it doesn’t. We can tell when something is “functional” or “ostentatious.” “Inspired” or “hacked.” We can tell when it’s complementary and when it’s disparate. I don’t think anybody would honestly suggest that this movie ought to be an exact duplicate of the 1960’s sets. But some people are suggesting if they had duplicated the original sets, it would have looked better than what they did do…. :P

I expected some things to be different. I love that they’re no longer placing critical displays directly behind the Captain’s chair (they put the MSD behind Picard on the E! “Open a channel,” “Ah, Captain, I see your ventral shields are failing” ) I can accept the big dangerous glass panels in the middle of the room, the “window” viewer, and the stations on the lower level. I can’t accept the millions of tiny purposeless lights, or the maitre d’ stations. It sounds weird, but I’ll give JJ a chance with the barcode scanners. But if those things don’t serve a heck of a lot more of a purpose than the War of the Worlds heat-ray view scopes from The Menagerie, they’re going on my unacceptable list, too.

Oh, and the solid-colored uniforms are also on my unacceptable list.
Seriously?
You see, I have taste.

Clearly from your comments… heh, heh, you don’t.
:P
lol, this is so fun…

388. Databrain - March 11, 2009

57:
Anthony said.

‘CS, warning for stepping over the line…tone it down’

Dude, are you kidding me? Take a look at the ‘shot by shot’ analysis article you posted a few down. Particularly the hateful, abusive comments many people made to me for having an opinion. You said nothing to any of those people about it. And you are telling C.S he went over the line? For what? Where? When? You seriously must be biased here Anthony. And I am only saying that to bring it to your conscious attention, not to ‘go over the line’ whatever that line might be. Personally, if it were up to me you’d let everyone say whatever they felt at the moment, even the hateful slanderous things they tend to bark out. The point being to reveal how foolishly reactive people can be. Seriously though, please take a look at the ‘show by show analysis of trailer #3′ thread, particularly some comments by some users regarding my personal life that had nothing to do with anything I said. And then kindly tell me why you are warning C.S and not these people. And also tell me where C.S went over the line, because I must have missed it.

389. Databrain - March 11, 2009

255 dom:

‘Dennis is an onetime TNG writer, a critic on this site (my favourite actually: his reviews have a great sense of humour and are suitably irreverent, yet respectful!) He also makes the Starship Exeter web series.

I might not agree 100 per cent with everything Dennis says, but he knows considerably more about the business and Trek than most people here. We’re lucky to have him posting here.

If Dennis calls someone out on their behaviour, it’s 99.999 per cent likely to be deserved!’

For all you know c.s is william shatner. Point being everyone here deserves mutual respect for contributing on some level to the trekverse. I don’t see that occurring. c.s didn’t say anything offensive at all.

390. Databrain - March 11, 2009

And here Anthony, are some of the comments in the forementioned thread that you spoke nothing about.

95. Lorebrain – March 9, 2009
(This one is the epitome of an ad hominem attack)
I think Databrain has a tiny willy and lives with his mummy. He also has a self dissasociation disorder and an inability to converse with people in an accepable manner. Probably borderline aspergers. Fact of the matter is it is fiction. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over yourself and your vision of a eutopia that never has and never can exist. Try enjoying life more and get a hooker.

Daoud – March 9, 2009
(note the accusation of manipulating more than one screen name)
#103 Considering he probably is trolling himself, which I’m sure AP will find with the IP logs. Although the best trolls know how to cover their tracks. It’s classic Troll Kingdom behavior, rule #14: Troll thyself using alters and draw in the “aw shucks” crowd.
108.

137. Geoffers – March 9, 2009
(again with the accusation)
Nice to see Databrain use his other alter ego (enphesis on ego)… ahh that said… I am “over myself”.. Ahem

And you warned c.s? Sorry, I have to laugh.

391. Mark Lynch - March 11, 2009

#358
Hey James, how about a feature length Phase II episode that shows how the crew originally got together and their first mission in the ‘real’ Universe.
Just a thought… :-)

BTW Ever so much looking forward to BaF part 2, it will look great on my new 37″ plasma telly. Bought specially for watching Phase II of course ;-)

392. rob - March 11, 2009

chambliss’ bridge really sucks.

393. redbellpeppers - March 11, 2009

344. I am not Herbert

******

Ha ha ha… you may not be Herbert, but you are amusing.
Me being partisan? Hardly- just pragmatic. You on the other hand…

394. Jefferies Tuber - March 12, 2009

The only thing dated about the new bridge are the dorks calling it an iBridge.

395. AJ - March 12, 2009

Databrain:

Could you kindly post your customer service issues over in “Feedback?”

No offense, but this just is not the place for it.

396. thorsten - March 12, 2009

@390…

Databrain, that is enough.
You bored us all long enough with you rantings how you grew up with TNG,
and that we all hate Roddenberrys original vision.

If you want to be respected, change yout tone.

397. Christine - March 12, 2009

#381 :: “… What others seem to want is a cookie cutter movie for nostalgic reasons. …eventually if you nitpick enough, all you get is an identical twin and that isn’t what the franchise needs. The fanbase is aging and Star Trek has to look like modern science fiction in order for it to catch the attention of young people. …”

I gotta say, I agree with you. And, though it is rather sad, if the bridge looked like it did back 40 years ago, and everyone acted like the actors that many years back, then (A) we probably wouldn’t have a very well-acted movie and (B) it wouldn’t make NEARLY as much as it could with the shown updates.

I’ve talked to people at my highschool; friends and such. Many of them watch “Heroes” and thus say the lovely little trailer. Most of them said close to these exact words:
“..I’m not really into Star Trek, but the movie looks like it’s gonna be pretty cool.”
For a bunch of 15-18 year olds who don’t know anything about ‘Trek aside from the names “Kirk” and “Spock”, I say that’s really good. Abrams and Chambliss and the rest of the crew must be doing SOMETHING right. Maybe give them a break?

398. Christine - March 12, 2009

That should be “saw” in the third paragraph.

399. thorsten - March 12, 2009

The movie was shot with anamorphic lenses… which means the pictures width is 2.39 times its height. You need a bigger bridge for that.

400. J W Wright - March 12, 2009

Does the link for Shatners Groom Lake work for anyone?

Not working for me.

401. kmart - March 12, 2009

399,

Wider ain’t bigger. As Thomas Doherty once said, subs are made for anamorphic, yet sub movies are shot on sets that are nowhere near as big as this bridge (unless you count the gimbal below the sets supporting it.)

402. Databrain - March 12, 2009

396:

Too bad. Deal with it.

403. Star Trackie - March 12, 2009

The problem is Mr. Chambliss should be professional enough to know how to hype his own bridge without tearing down the original. His wording reveals a total lack of respect and knowledge of what came before and invites the immediate backlash of those who DO understand and respect that which came before and the talents of those who put that “cardboard” together.

For a movie that is all about “honoring” that which came before, Chambliss’s words do not serve them well. If Chambliss is going out on the interview circuit, JJ should school the man on how to appraoch this topic with a bit more class and tact. His real colors aren’t that flattering.

404. Valenti - March 12, 2009

The TOS bridge always felt claustrophobic to me. Partially because it looked rather small and black walls made everything seem even smaller.

By the looks of it, the TOS bridge is about the size of my bedroom…

—–

Wait what? those are bar code scanners? Out here in the Netherlands, they look nothing like the ones you see in those pics…

——

I’m 22 years old and I grew up on Star Trek, thanks to my mother. When I was approx. 5 years old, I started watching TOS with her. Thanks to TOS, I learned to speak and write English at a very young age.

I guess I can see where the older fans are coming from, but damn, I love that new bridge design. It doesn’t feel nearly as claustrophobic as the TOS bridge.

405. LordCheeseCakeBreath - March 12, 2009

I’m excited to see this movie! The fact that Mr. Cawley is working on an original time line Star Trek origin movie makes me even more excited! T

Thanks a bunch for responding James!

406. Dom - March 12, 2009

339. CaptainRickover: ‘But if you want to imply, that the design of the interior will be changing later in the new movie, I think you are mistaken.’

I’m not imoplying that! I’m simply implying that, come the sequel, the ship might be ‘finished’ construction-wise. If it’s brand new, maybe some more coloured panelling might be added between films.

‘It would be great to see – after the timeline-repairing – a more familiar design, but I don’t think so.’

There hopefully won’t be any ‘timeline repairing’. The new universe is what it is! The plot reset switch is the abiding legacy of the TNG era and it stinks. It is a disgraceful piece of lazy writing that deserves to be drowned, acid bathed and flushed down the plughole! It cheats the audience and cheats believability! Big (and and sometimes bad) things happen to nice people sometimes and part of life is living with it!

If they change history at the end of the new film, there is not one audience member who will walk out of there satisfied!

And, as for the complaints about the white bridge, did anyone see the end of The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV? !That bridge looked pretty white to me!

For a 2.40:1 movie, you need a big, wide bridge and therefore need more people and more location detail. TMP had that and so does this film!

407. Dennis Bailey - March 12, 2009

It is interesting that they supposedly looked at ST:TMP, because when I first saw both the bridge set and the exterior design of the Enterprise I thought immediately of that movie.

408. AJ - March 12, 2009

406/Dom:

“If they change history at the end of the new film, there is not one audience member who will walk out of there satisfied!”

You’re right. I think the “repaired timeline” is the one in which the Enterprise defeats Nero, and this same crew (from this film) goes back and begins its legendary trek together.

That means that we will most likely get a glimpse of what would have happened had Nero won. Someone wrote a while back about a glimpse of an ‘alternative’ Enterprise kitted out as a warship in the film.

Old Spock follows Nero back, and is present as the divergence occurs. What he and Nero then do for 30 years is a mystery.

409. McCoy - March 12, 2009

406: “There hopefully won’t be any ‘timeline repairing’. The new universe is what it is! The plot reset switch is the abiding legacy of the TNG era and it stinks. It is a disgraceful piece of lazy writing that deserves to be drowned, acid bathed and flushed down the plughole! It cheats the audience and cheats believability! Big (and and sometimes bad) things happen to nice people sometimes and part of life is living with it!”

Aside from very, very tight effects (ILM) there’s really nothing they can do with this movie to even come close to the best episodes of TNG. The TNG time travel episodes are some of the best TV in history. Thought provoking rides and I’m glad they are rest.

“And, as for the complaints about the white bridge, did anyone see the end of The Voyage Home: Star Trek IV? !That bridge looked pretty white to me!”

It just doesn’t matter what the Voyage Home bridge looked like. It didn’t have to be TOS. It was moving forward in the Trek verse.

410. JDM - March 12, 2009

Like it or not, the differences have pretty much already been explained. “James T. Kirk was a great man, but that was another life.” Nero attacks the Kelvin, which Kirk’s father commands for 12 minutes – and, obviously, that’s not SUPPOSED to happen, just as a 23rd century ship encountering a late 24th or even early 25th century Romulan (or Reman???) ship isn’t supposed to happen. It may not account for the new designs, but it DOES change things. As for the designs, however, look at the last trailer and you’ll notice that the Kelvin’s bridge looks almost exactly like the ship bridges from previous movies, particularly the 80’s films. I’m guessing part of the reason for the design of the new Enterprise bridge is safety – big plexiglass shields to keep crew working even when debris is flying around.

411. Dennis Bailey - March 12, 2009

#409:”Aside from very, very tight effects (ILM) there’s really nothing they can do with this movie to even come close to the best episodes of TNG. The TNG time travel episodes are some of the best TV in history. Thought provoking rides and I’m glad they are rest.”

They’re okay; they’re not brilliant. It shouldn’t be at all difficult for the ST09 script to equal and probably exceed them.

“Yesterday’s Enterprise” = good time travel story.

“Terminator” = great time travel story.

“The Time Machine” = great time travel story (the Pal version, anyway).

412. New Horizon - March 12, 2009

409 – McCoy
“It just doesn’t matter what the Voyage Home bridge looked like. It didn’t have to be TOS. It was moving forward in the Trek verse.”

Neither does this movie.

TOS, was a 60’s ‘television show’…interpreting a future Trek time period through the eyes of 60’s designers, styles and 60’s budgets. There are those who are convinced that if this movie is taking place in the same time period, that it has to look exactly as it did on TOS…that’s ridiculous. It’s not a real time or place…it was an interpretation…just as much as THIS is an interpretation.

Some fans say…oh, but if they built the original bridge with modern materials, it would look great. What the hell does that even mean? It’s still going to be, small, angular and boxy looking….and representative of a 60’s interpretation of the future. It was a great design for the time, but this is 40 years later….and any artist has the right to express themselves, rather than slavishly regurgitate another artist’s designs. If I were hired to do that, I would quit.

It’s clearly evident that ‘we’ the fans are partly to blame for what Trek became. We held onto it too closely…and the producers who took care of Trek for so long…lost their backbone, and their sense of wonder. Reading these rants and spoiled child posts sucks all enjoyment out of life…and I can only imaging how Berman and Braga must have felt. They were probably thinking…”what the hell do they want from us?” Those famous lines…’risk is our business’. Well, I’m really happy to see this film take some risks…it was a long time coming.

413. Alex Rosenzweig - March 12, 2009

#375 – “What do you think of the various Bridges that have come and gone since TOS? Later series included?”

Oooh, lots of choices. But my favorites are probably the Enterprise-E bridge as a 24th Century bridge, the NX-01 bridge for an earlier timeframe, and the “Trek V” bridge for the Classic movies.

In general, I’ve tended to like a lot of what I’ve seen. I liked the layout of the TMP bridge, but the detailing of the TWOK/TSFS version. The one at the end of ST4 was, like the new one, just too bright to be a regular workspace, though it did underscore the idea of the E-A as brand-new at that moment. And the ST6 version seemed like the ST5 one, but less sleek and futuristic.

“Is there one you would pick for the new film, if you had to?”

I would have started from the ST5 bridge and reverse-engineered it. that bridge always seemed like a slicked-up version of the TOS bridge to me, and I liked it for that. I should emphasize, though, that I think the TOS–or, really, the “Cage”–version could be an effective basis for a modern bridge. Just as an example, imagine how different it would \have looked if the big change they made was to treat all the big black areas above each outer station as big, dynamic screens, alive with information and displays as things happened in the film. (I’d also get rid of the gooseneck viewers, which really do look dated, and make each of the eight winky-blinky panels on each station an actual screen, too, like they’re doing on the “Phase II” bridge, and like they did in selective locations on the “In a Mirror, Darkly” bridge.)

Add a few more curves and the use of modern lighting and materials, and it would look quite different and modern, I think, without being *too* different.

#381 – “What is considered reasonable? Some of us think that what we have seen already is reasonable.”

I think that the idea of what constitutes “reasonable” is probably going to vary widely among different folks. And that’s fine, really. There’s plenty of room for differing ideas. Personally, I don’t think the new bridge is awful; I just have some creative differences with the choices made. Ironically, I think a lot of what Mr. Chambliss did with it might have worked better if the set were a little closer in size to the original, though I’ll caveat that by saying that the imagery we’ve seen so far isn’t giving me a clear picture of how much bigger it is. Also, is it really an oval now, or is that a trick of the camera perspective?

#391 – “Hey James, how about a feature length Phase II episode that shows how the crew originally got together and their first mission in the ‘real’ Universe.
Just a thought… :-)”

I’ll second that! I’d love to see it.

#404 – “By the looks of it, the TOS bridge is about the size of my bedroom…”

Man, what palatial estate do you live in? I’d love to have a 30+-foot diameter bedroom! ;)

#406 – “If they change history at the end of the new film, there is not one audience member who will walk out of there satisfied!”

If they start out by telling us that the villain has changed history and the hero(s) are trying to stop–or at least remediate–it, I’d argue that some level of repair is almost a mandate for a satisfying ending to the story. Elsewise, the story becomes about how our heroes tried and failed. Now, for various reasons, I don’t think it’ll be a “perfect”, seamless fix, but I think it’d need to sort of re-synch on some level with the original if this whole story is going to work.

“For a 2.40:1 movie, you need a big, wide bridge and therefore need more people and more location detail. TMP had that and so does this film!”

But TMP’s bridge wasn’t nearly as much larger than the original as the new one appears to be (though see above caveat about camera perspective). If the new bridge is actually sized comparably to TMP’s, I’ll withdraw about half my objections to it right-off. :)

414. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - March 12, 2009

What happened to all the comments on this??

415. Author of The Vulcan Neck Pinch for Fathers - March 12, 2009

NM, sorry, I came to this page a few minutes ago and the comments were all gone…must have been a temporary glitch.

416. Bradley1701 - March 12, 2009

#412

I agree with you completely. Clawley does great work and “In a Mirror Darkly” was cool, but they still have that dated look to them despite being built in modern times with modern budgets. I still love TOS but it is out of pure nostalgia.

417. Valenti - March 12, 2009

To 413. Alex Rosenzweig:
Hahahaha. All right, so I was exaggerating. xD

But that TOS bridge does look tiny.

418. krikzil - March 12, 2009

“It’s clearly evident that ‘we’ the fans are partly to blame for what Trek became. We held onto it too closely…and the producers who took care of Trek for so long…lost their backbone, and their sense of wonder. Reading these rants and spoiled child posts sucks all enjoyment out of life…and I can only imaging how Berman and Braga must have felt. ”

I’d have to disagree, having heard them at cons and all. They had backbone to boot and did as they pleased. THAT is what sometimes alienated some fans. LOL. I remember Braga at a con on the subject of Kirk’s death. Oh my. Not repentent at all….downright gleeful. I actually had to admire his chutzpah to be honest even though I thought it was the WORST way to kill such an iconic character.

And as for the posts on this thread….I just really don’t understand why a poster’s comments can “suck the life” out of anything. Do I agree with every comment made in this thread? Of course not. But debating isn’t a bad thing as long as comments don’t get personal against individual posters. To me a “closed” mind is one that can’t tolerate the fact that not everyone will see the world the same way they do.

419. Harry Ballz - March 12, 2009

Gee, Liz, three guesses as to who you are referring to! ;>)

420. Anthony Thompson - March 12, 2009

304. C.S. Lewis

I notice that you didn’t respond to 288. Ha!

421. Mr. Bob Dobalina - March 12, 2009

412 “There are those who are convinced that if this movie is taking place in the same time period, that it has to look exactly as it did on TOS…that’s ridiculous. It’s not a real time or place…it was an interpretation…just as much as THIS is an interpretation.”

Absurd. Star Trek has a very established timeline and a very rich history within it’s own fictional universe. We know what the 22nd century looks like, we know what the 23rd century looks like and we know what the 24th century looks like. This movie has Leonard Nimoy as an elderly 24th century Spock. I mean, this is THE same Spock who walked the plywood with Shatner’s Kirk . It stands to reason, that if, 100 years later, the actor and character who walked on that TOS bridge, travels back through time, to the era of TOS, that he would walk on that very same bridge. (Unless of course, an altered timeline changes things)

This is not a re-invention,but a continuation, therefore the history, if the story were to stay in the old timeline, should not change. But the timeline does change, so its no big deal. Bottom line, fictional universe or not, it IS well established in events and aesthetics. If you plan on making a time travel movie about the civil war, you don’t time travel back to the civil war and give the rebels machine guns and jets just because you think it looks cool and you have the cgi ability to do so.

422. New Horizon - March 12, 2009

421. Mr. Bob Dobalina – March 12, 2009

LOL It doesn’t stand to reason at all…it’s an artistic production choice. There are no physical or creative bounds saying the Enterprise didn’t look different from the way it did on a 60’s television series. Think outside the box.

What we saw on the TV screen was what was possible at the time. It was an interpretation of the 23rd century that was possible in the 1960’s on their budget. It’s a set. The new set adheres to the basic principle of the Enterprise bridge…center seat, nav and helm, comm and science stations in their similar positions. Even the animated series added an extra turbo lift door, because it was always meant to be there. It’s no different than ridges suddenly appearing on Klingon’s in TMP…Roddenberry said they were always meant to be there, they just couldn’t afford it.

So there is no reason, other than our own lack of imagination, why the Enterprise can’t look radically different. Just because it looked that way in the 60’s doesn’t mean it can’t look different in 2009 and still be the same ship.

We don’t know how the 23rd and 24th centuries ‘REALLY’ look, we know how they have been interpreted and reinterpreted throughout different decades…but that’s not real…it’s a reflection of the time they were created. This, is a different time.

423. McCoy - March 12, 2009

412: “It’s clearly evident that ‘we’ the fans are partly to blame for what Trek became. We held onto it too closely…and the producers who took care of Trek for so long…lost their backbone, and their sense of wonder. Reading these rants and spoiled child posts sucks all enjoyment out of life…and I can only imaging how Berman and Braga must have felt. They were probably thinking…”what the hell do they want from us?” Those famous lines…’risk is our business’. Well, I’m really happy to see this film take some risks…it was a long time coming.”

Well, I’m actually a graphic artist/multimedia designer by trade so I am familiar with the idea of working with a client towards their needs and also taking the lead where it makes sense. Most producers, if not all, will take the lead without asking what the fans want. Certainly no one asked my opinion about Voyager or the prequel series (Enterprise). Berman was burnt out like the rest of us. There’s only so many stories to tell with a ship flying through a galaxy. Voyager and Enterprise were more of the same.

Space is dark…having a prequel series based on Earth with blue skies and green grass would have been a fresh direction. Perhaps a prequel series with young Kirk on Earth and Spock on Vulcan. With cameos by a certain Doctor. Would have been cool. Maybe Smallville cool.

424. New Horizon - March 12, 2009

423. McCoy – March 12, 2009
Well, I’m actually a graphic artist/multimedia designer by trade….

So am I. lol

425. McCoy - March 12, 2009

424..

That’s funny!

426. Bradley1701 - March 12, 2009

#421

Absurd. There is a difference between making a show or movie that is set in a historical or present day environment versus one that is science fiction. You cannot compare real life environments that existed in the past or present and try to compare them to SCIENCE FICTION. Do you know what science fiction is? I’m sure when they were designing the Enterprise in the 60’s they were doing everything they could to make it something other than a flying saucer or a rocket because those were to sci-fi ships that seem to be successful on tv and in movies before Trek.

The aesthetics of those centuries you speak of were designed and built from a science fiction perspective of the 60’s through to the 90’s. What we expect to see as science fiction now is completely different as society has changed so much in terms of technology, architecture, etc. To just clone aestethics from a show that was on the air 20-30 years before its target audience does not make sense.

They are trying to reach a new audience. I am a diehard TOS fan, but the set of CSI Miami looks more sci-fi and advanced than the bridge of TOS Enterprise….kids would think that as well.

If new audience members watched this movie and the sets were duplicate designs of TOS, I’m sure they would come out of the movie thinking one word….LAME.

427. Jefferies Tuber - March 12, 2009

423 McCoy

There’s only so many stories to tell with a ship flying through a galaxy.

Respectfully, I think while that may be true, Berman and series Trek never even came close to the depleting the possibilities. The paperbacks demonstrate this… and it’s not just about budgets. There was just too much calcification of thought.

428. Closettrekker - March 12, 2009

#421—“Absurd. Star Trek has a very established timeline and a very rich history within it’s own fictional universe. We know what the 22nd century looks like, we know what the 23rd century looks like and we know what the 24th century looks like. This movie has Leonard Nimoy as an elderly 24th century Spock. I mean, this is THE same Spock who walked the plywood with Shatner’s Kirk . It stands to reason, that if, 100 years later, the actor and character who walked on that TOS bridge, travels back through time, to the era of TOS, that he would walk on that very same bridge. ”

I have to disagree that a fictional future is bound by such rules, and even moreso that a modern interpretation of that vision for the future is somehow absurd.

“(Unless of course, an altered timeline changes things)”

Personally, I do not even require that to be an explanation. It is enough for me to know that what I saw on television in TOS was a 1960’s artist’s interpretation of what the 23rd Century might look like. I have no difficulty imagining that this is the same ship, same bridge, etc. It’s all made-up anyway.

“If you plan on making a time travel movie about the civil war, you don’t time travel back to the civil war and give the rebels machine guns and jets just because you think it looks cool and you have the cgi ability to do so.”

Now that would be a version of The Civil War that would qualify as having been “tampered with”, wouldn’t it?

Beyond that, The American Civil War is an actual historical event—not a depiction of a setting that doesn’t really exist (and never has existed). I find no value in that analogy. The whole point of such a piece would be to re-create actual historical detail, as opposed to creating something which–in 2009–might be a believable interpretation of what 250 or so years in the future might look and feel like.

I don’t need to see the TOS bridge anymore than I need to see aliens in go-go boots and heavy eye-shadow. It’s no different. Both are products of the time in which the Original Series was produced.

I would be extremely disappointed if more than 4 decades of perspective-altering progress were ignored in the production of this film. If anything were to qualify as “absurd”, IMO—it would have to be that.

429. Anthony Pascale - March 12, 2009

Just an FYI, contributors to this site are also authorized to be moderators. So when someone like John Tenuto, Chuck Trotter, Alex Fletcher, Kayla Iacovino, Robert Lyons, Rosario Calibria or Thorsten Wulff suggests you change your tone, it is the same as me making that request

As usual, my main concern is civility. I must say that I always find it hard to understand when people get very angry. I don’t take trek seriously enough to get that angry and i generally find angry tones very disturbing and not very Star Trek.

anyone have any issues with how we do things go to http://trekmovie.com/about/feedback

430. Brandon Collins - March 12, 2009

Had they left both the ship and the bridge the same as it looked during the original series, there would be those fans that were wanting something new complaining. This movie was designed not only for trekies but for an audience that has never seen Star Trek. Both the fans and newbys are the future of the Star Trek franchise. I think Abrams and crew are taking the right aproach to this movie with the new sets and ships and story line but at the same time keeping to the true spirit of Star Trek. Thats the only thing that should matter the most about this movie.

431. krikzil - March 12, 2009

“Gee, Liz, three guesses as to who you are referring to! ;>)”

Actually, no one specifically. I am just always amazed when someone whines — and I see it on a lot of threads — that other posts are ruining things for them. I don’t know why you’d let that happen. I enjoy reading all the posts, even the ones that make me scratch my head in puzzlement. ;)

The only things I object to is when people call each other names or drag out the “true fan” nonsense. I’ve always found all the differing opinions in Trek to be fascinating and indicative of how rich a tapestry Trek has become.

432. New Horizon - March 12, 2009

431 – The only things I object to is when people call each other names or drag out the “true fan” nonsense.

That’s the kind of stuff I’m talking about. The HATE.

433. Dr. Image - March 12, 2009

Best bridge ever : The Defiant.
And yes, the bridge at the end of TVH- even though it was held together with duct tape.
Even ENT’s bridge- they ALL seem more “real” than this one.

I can’t get past the laziness of the damn barcode scanners.
Sorry.

434. McCoy - March 12, 2009

430

“Had they left both the ship and the bridge the same as it looked during the original series, there would be those fans that were wanting something new complaining.”

Perhaps there would be some, but not to the degree we have. It would have been a better bet to have favored on the side of expectation and continuity. Chances are they are already fans because they accepted what came before. But also, no one expected exactly what they had in the 60’s. Only something visually closer than what we have here. The bridge used for the cage actually looks pretty good.

“This movie was designed not only for trekies but for an audience that has never seen Star Trek.”

Right. And that’s the first place the film went off track (IMO). It’s logical to plan for non fans, but there would be a lot more happier people if the movie’s budget allowed for a film that was more-true to continuity and didn’t have the burden of reaching beyond the fans, their spouses and their children. Plus, also IMO, a large budget classic Trek film with a good (prime) story and effects would draw non-Trek fans anyway. If you build it, they will come. Just like Iron Man.

435. Star Trackie - March 12, 2009

#426 “There is a difference between making a show or movie that is set in a historical or present day environment versus one that is science fiction. ”

Not when that science fiction universe is well established. Would or should Harrison Ford, star in a new Star Wars movie…as an elderly Han Solo… that takes him back in time and when he flies the Millenium falcon the ship resembles the jupiter 2 and Chewie is now a human? I mean, it’s all science fiction right? What does it matter if you jack with a fictional universe that has history and is well established, it’s just sci-fi.

well, apparently the integrity of Treks 40 year history means a lot more to some than to others. Some are willing to give the new guys a free pass across the board, which I don’t get, unless they re 24th century spin-off fans who never had a big emotional investment with TOS to begin with. But regardless, this IS a new timeline, and the changes are fine but I can certainly see where the detractors are coming from.

To grant designers a free pass to do as they please just because it’s science fiction just doesn’t fly with me…not when it comes to existing franchises with decades of backstory.

Does it work in this case? Yes, it’s a new timeline. But would you change things so drastically and so radically, different Millineum Falcon designs, new R2-D2, hairless Chewie, in Star Wars ( and I DON”T mean the occasional CGI tweaking that Lucas is so fond of) without the explanation of a changed timeline, just because, hey, it’s only science fiction?? I seriously doubt it.

436. New Horizon - March 12, 2009

435. Star Trackie – March 12, 2009
Not when that science fiction universe is well established. Would or should Harrison Ford, star in a new Star Wars movie…as an elderly Han Solo… that takes him back in time and when he flies the Millenium falcon the ship resembles the jupiter 2 and Chewie is now a human? I mean, it’s all science fiction right? What does it matter if you jack with a fictional universe that has history and is well established, it’s just sci-fi.

That’s completely ridiculous for starters. Sure, the ship could look different, but asking if Chewie should be human is silly. There is a difference between changing the look of a set and changing a character from alien to human.

437. McCoy - March 12, 2009

435.

I agree with all except the part about the current film being “fine.” lol

438. TrekMadeMeWonder - March 12, 2009

MEssA Likey!!!!

1:46

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uigEVMQTMrA&feature=related

439. Jeff C - March 12, 2009

377– Thanks for the comment, Will. I think that Abrams sees himself as “A Man with a Vision”–for fun, keep track of how many times someone says “JJ’s Vision” during press interviews. And his vision doesn’t care about how or where this movies fits into the other Star Treks. This is HIS Star Trek, take it or leave it.

Or, even if you don’t like it, show up and pay your $10.00 anyway. They don’t care if you like it–but they will take your money.

————-

412– “There are those who are convinced that if this movie is taking place in the same time period, that it has to look exactly as it did on TOS…that’s ridiculous. It’s not a real time or place…it was an interpretation…just as much as THIS is an interpretation.”

And you hit the nail on the head of why this movie feels wrong to some people. It feels like an adaptation or an interpretation, whereas the other shows felt (except Enterprise) like part of a cohesive Universe. It may not be a real time or place, but for millions of fans it was a place they wanted to be!
———–
421–also in response to 412

“Absurd. Star Trek has a very established timeline and a very rich history within it’s own fictional universe. We know what the 22nd century looks like, we know what the 23rd century looks like and we know what the 24th century looks like. This movie has Leonard Nimoy as an elderly 24th century Spock. I mean, this is THE same Spock who walked the plywood with Shatner’s Kirk . It stands to reason, that if, 100 years later, the actor and character who walked on that TOS bridge, travels back through time, to the era of TOS, that he would walk on that very same bridge. (Unless of course, an altered timeline changes things) ”

Bob–I agree with you totally. Hopefully, Spock will make some comment about how he changed things, or how things have been changed since the destruction of all those ships and the Kelvin. If not, it is the last straw.
Perhaps the Spock, Nero and everyone else from the future are not from the future of our Star Trek at all. Perhaps they are only the future versions of the new Universe’s characters–in which case this really is a reboot after all–but one in which they decided to give umbrage to a Future History that hasn’t happened yet.
Who the hell knows at this point?
Why don’t they just call this movie “JJ Abrams’s Star Trek” and settle it once and for all?

“Bottom line, fictional universe or not, it IS well established in events and aesthetics. If you plan on making a time travel movie about the civil war, you don’t time travel back to the civil war and give the rebels machine guns and jets just because you think it looks cool and you have the cgi ability to do so.”

Amen. Well, spoken Bob. And yet, so many people do exactly that.
Think of how many films set in the Roman Empire got the details wrong, so it could “look cool”–except the TV Show ROME that fudged the History for dramatic effect, but got all the visual details right.
————-

I keep thinking about Bryan Singer. A good director who made a relaunch movie that was half reimagining and half loving tribute (as he saw it) to one of his favorite films, Superman. He is also a HUGE Star Trek fan. Had he made this film, it might have looked much more like the original show (the shape of the old sets and ship–but with high-tech details)–but after the response to a that film would he even want to do another Reboot of a classic franchise? I mean, he was going to remake Logan’s Run–but I think that is stalled now.
He should have made X-Men 3 after all, I suppose.

The point is every project has it’s supporters and detractors. And anyone attempting this would be under the same scrutiny, and would suffer the same amount of criticism and compliments.

And we all armchair quarterback everything, because we are fans.

I would have made the film visually more consistant with what came before, not slavishly, because you do need to have updated textural elements to sell a new audience on this, but at least used the same, darker color pallete of The Cage, that felt unified with the costumes, kept the bridge a circle with the trubolift at the back of the bridge, as opposed to the wide oval of the new bridge–and I would have hidden the lights better. The halls would have been rectangular, with ocasional pumps and mechanisms, probably not painted bright colors, and the ship would not be highly polished everywhere.

It would feel functional–not like a concept car at a dealership.

But that is just my personal aesthetic.

440. thorsten - March 12, 2009

@439…

Jeff C, so nice to see you again.

441. spock's ear - March 12, 2009

to all:

Color, ergonomics, mood, upbeat but not overlit, respect for Matt Jeffries original, modernized/updated with modern media tech?

I think so…

Just one opinion, respectfully submitted.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/31487060@N06/

442. What is it with you? - March 12, 2009

So negative. If this is the state of Star Trek fandom…

Bitter

Inflexible

Unimaginative

…then it is my sincere hope we gain a new Trekkie blood with this film.

I’m all for the popcorn crowd if all I’m stuck with now is you lot.

443. McCoy - March 12, 2009

442:

LOL

If this is the state of Star Trek design….

So shiny

So bright

Unimaginative

So, bar-code scannery

Then it’s my sincere hope that the ship blows up.

444. thorsten - March 12, 2009

@443∞

McCoy, did you ever see these pictures I linked to that german starship from 1966 with irons on the bridge?

445. What is it with you? - March 12, 2009

#443
McCoy

Point proved.

Just sad…

446. Jeff C - March 12, 2009

440 – Thorsten.
How have you been?

441–Ooh. I like it! With the big struts between the workstations, it feels like it is a Bridge more of the era of STVI, but it is a beautiful bridge nonetheless. You are inspiring me to do something that begins with the Original Bridge and go from there. Unless you want to tackle it first.

On the Enterprise–they had small screens and the larger screens above them.–I always thought they were just a way to have multiple ideas running at once, or different stations with constant display of ship functions.
Maybe the small screens closer to eye level are for the people working at their stations and the large upper Screens are for the Captain to look around and see the Status of the ship? Then, they can use those screens to bring up more imagery when needed.

442–you do recognize the irony of what you just wrote right?
It is a little bitter. Just saying. :)

447. What is it with you? - March 12, 2009

#446

Yeah I get it.

I’ve been listening to these nerds complain about every little thing for 8 months now….

I like debate, I do. And I like talking about the geeky little changes. But the constant negativity gets to me.

Thousands of hours of free television. No more than 100 bucks worth of admission to movies. And all they can do is complain when something new comes along.

Pretty lame if you ask me. So I guess I’m bitter at their self-importance.

448. Harry Ballz - March 12, 2009

Is it being self-important or self-absorbed?

449. Christine - March 12, 2009

#435; Star Trackie :: “… well, apparently the integrity of Treks 40 year history means a lot more to some than to others. Some are willing to give the new guys a free pass across the board, which I don’t get, unless they re 24th century spin-off fans who never had a big emotional investment with TOS to begin with. …”

I’m sorry, that’s seems a little ridiculous to me.

I am a huge TOS fan, I just happen to be very open-minded and willing to let change happen. The bridge is different, yes, but that won’t completely change the story. Yes, I do have an emotional investment with TOS (per se) yet that doesn’t stop me from being psyched about the movie — and LIKING the new bridge.

450. Jeff C - March 12, 2009

447–Without fans, there are no Star Trek television shows or movies.

For the ten years between the cancellation of the show and the premiere of TMP, Star Trek lived as a series of adaptation books, the Animated series for a season, and basically discussions, fan fiction and convention gatherings. The fans lobbied to get the name of the first test Space Shuttle called the Enterprise, they contributed time and money to many charities in Star Trek’s name, they promoted Science and Fellowship and kept dogging Paramount and Roddenberry to make a new series or movie about Star Trek–and they wanted the cast back.

Throughout the history of the Franchise, the fans have constantly been told that they are who the creators make the shows for, that the fans have saved Star Trek from oblivion a number of times. And, possibly, the fans not only feel emboldened by that attitude, but empowered by it.

For years, we have been told that Star Trek, was, essentially OURS.
And now we have become used to pushing our own agendas on everyone.

But I think there is an unwritted understanding that these discussions and arguments, no matter how heated they get, are displays of the passion we have for our fandom. I don’t mind getting my feathers ruffled, or ruffling others–because we are all on the same page, even if we have different points of view: We all love Star Trek.

What pisses me off are the guys coming in and telling me not to care, to stop “being a Geek, Nerd, Get a Life, Grow up, Kiss a Girl, Get Out of Your Parent’s Basement” and all the other BS that people throw at Trek Fans. This stigma has been placed on fans by outside sources, not by the fans themselves. The problem is that the Stigma has grown faster than the Franchise–and people who are unused to passionate fandom are quick to ridicule what they don’t understand. So, they throw up their hands and leave, or they lash out–which causes other fans to attack the attackers.
It becomes a vicious circle.

As long as Paramount was happy with the limited returns they got from Star Trek –and the fans were happy with the stories being told with ilimited budgets, everyone was happy. But when the films weren’t making enough money in the company’s mind, and fans weren’t happy with the choices behind the stories (see Enterprise) then there was problem…and Star Trek entered it’s second exile.

This new film is a departure for how the Star Trek business model operates. Abrams and company have not really been courting the old fans. They are populists at heart–God bless ‘em. They have got Paramount investing a LOT of money and casting a wide net with the marketing.

This film is a gamble–but not in the way you might think. It will have a huge opening weekend–that is guaranteed. But what is at risk are all the fans that have had their egos bruised by how this film was made and the choices they have made with the story, casting, production design and every other factor. They will show up to see what the company has made–but their continued support of Star Trek might waver when they realize that there will be no new product in their old universe. It is a risk.

The new fans won’t get what all the hubub is about. You fall in love with the Star Trek you were first introduced to–which is why some people cannot see anyone but Shatner as Kirk, the Matt Jefrries Enterprise as the only ship and also why some fans love TNG, DS9 VOY and the Enterprise TV show.

And new fans, who discover Star Trek with this film will might like the old shows, because in their minds THIS is what Star Trek is. And for this franchise’s fans, which have had everything build from the original, that is a shocking idea.

One of the things you have to understand that every jumping-on point for new fans is also a jumping-off point for old fans. Superhero comic books have had that happen everything they restart universes, as have every old television show that was reinterpreted as a Major Motion Picture.

So, will this be Star Trek: Year One or Crisis on Infinite Enterprises?

451. Jeff C - March 12, 2009

Oh..supposed to be “And new fans, who discover Star Trek with this film MIGHT NOT like the old shows”…
Sorry…

452. Jeff C - March 12, 2009

…and I misspelled Matt Jeffries, which is kind of ironic…must type slower…

453. What is it with you? - March 12, 2009

#450

“But what is at risk are all the fans that have had their egos bruised by how this film was made and the choices they have made with the story, casting, production design and every other factor.”

First Point. Because you’ve seen it in its totality. And you can make these judgements?

You are making my point for me You hate the whole idea of this before even giving it a chance. Because you just want to keep revisiting the same tired actors, design aesthetic, plotlines, and production values.

You see, like it or not, Star Trek isn’t made for you. It’s made to make money. All commercial art is. It makes money or they can’t make more art.

There aren’t enough fanboys (and girls) like you and me to perpetuate the old type of Trek. Orci, Kurtz and the other artists that made this movie realize this, and so they have tried to make it more palatable to the masses. From what I can tell, they did this by focusing on telling an epic story with mass appeal. This is what the trek you loved failed to do – and it faded away. And you know what? We (your fanboy butt and mine) are to blame. Because we kept swallowing (i.e. watching) the same old crap. Just enough to keep it going. Just enough to keep it stale.

From my perspective, the director and writers have gone out of their way to include the old fans like you and me; look at the uniforms, look at the phaser, look at the cast (e.g. Scotty could have been a woman). And yet you guys keep complaining because it’s not perfect clone.

Well, it can’t be. It can’t be the same old Trek you loved or Star Trek is over.

What I find amazing is that you can continue to b!tch and moan about that. You can’t embrace the possibility that change is good. Stop been so self-absorbed (thanks for that word, Harry).

454. Christine - March 12, 2009

Agreed, #453. Do you want to see Star Trek wither up and die because the bridge looks different? Is it really worth it? Personally, I think that if this can bring new life to the franchise, we can deal with a larger, different bridge.

The production team of ST09 has sent the franchise to the Genesis planet, and they’re bringing it to us – ALIVE – on May 8th. Let’s try not to let the planet explode before they’ve done that, all right?

455. krikzil (aka Lixy) - March 12, 2009

“I’ve been listening to these nerds complain about every little thing for 8 months now….”

Gee, who exactly is making you keep coming back for more? If it made me so miserable, I’d find another place to be.

Just saying. Cause complaining ABOUT the complaining strikes me as being rather self-indulgent.

456. BaronByng - March 12, 2009

446. Maybe the small screens closer to eye level are for the people working at their stations and the large upper Screens are for the Captain to look around and see the Status of the ship? Then, they can use those screens to bring up more imagery when needed.

If I’m not mistaken, that’s what the design team have done on the ST09 bridge, with those ‘widescreen’ displays above the stations, and the transparent ‘data screens’.

457. What is it with you? - March 12, 2009

#455

It’s not self-indulgent to raise the point their complaining is what kept Trek medicore for more than ten years.

And their complaining is what leads these new artists to second-guess their instincts.

You see, Voyager and Enterprise were made for the trek nerds like me. And we watched just enough to keep it MOR (middle of the road), but our hardcore group isnt’ large enough to keep it going. Or to keep it entertaining.

I want everyone to see what I like about Star Trek. And that won’t happen if these geeks get their way – if it’s made just for trek nerds. Sorry, but I don’t want a movie made just for me. I want one made for my wife and my friends, and a whole legion of new fans.

Sorry if that means losing a few Trek “purists” or “Roddenberry Visionaries”.

See post 453.

458. The Jui$tain - March 12, 2009

#441–It actually looks more like a work station on the Enterprise E, with a few slight modifications of course. But you did a good job on it though.

#453–Agreed.

#457–“I want everyone to see what I like about Star Trek. And that won’t happen if these geeks get their way – if it’s made just for trek nerds. Sorry, but I don’t want a movie made just for me. I want one made for my wife and my friends, and a whole legion of new fans.

Sorry if that means losing a few Trek “purists” or “Roddenberry Visionaries.”

I agree whole-heartedly, I don’t want one made for just me. I want one that my friends and family will actually be interested in seeing. We need new fans to the franchise, if you get them interested in the new movie then maybe, just maybe they’ll start checking out all that has come before. From TOS to ENT, from TMP to NEM. From the novels to STO. I mean, honestly how many non-Trekkies will be playing STO?

Trek was dying and JJ and crew gave it the breath of life needed to revive it and bring it back to life in all it’s glory. Well, that’s my $.02. Now off to play some more Halo Wars…..

*J

459. McCoy - March 12, 2009

443: thorsten

no didn’t see the link. I found a cool german video on youtube called “Schneller Raumkreuzer ORION Alarmstart” Is that it?

Didn’t notice any irons. But ya know, at least with irons they can do laundry during battle. Scanning merchandise….I don’t know. :o)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hobEAZ5N3L4

460. McCoy - March 12, 2009

Something that seems to get lost on most posts here is that the newbies don’t care about the details we cherish. Or the continuity. If the production designs were closer to TOS (or the Cage) the so called newbies would never know—but there would be more nerdgasms and a lot less controversy.

The newbies are going for Pine, Quinto, Zoe and the ILM effects—not the sets. So why not lean towards continuity on those issues?

Which brings me to the other issue. If this film was told in prime with better TOS updates, I would be see it a gazillion times. That’s the nature of core fanbase. Again and again and again. Yet they tell us again and again that it’s not for the core fanbase. In fact, the designs speak that loud and clear. The story essentially says “out with the old and in with the new”. So at this point, they will be real lucky if I ever see it in the theater but have certainly lost me on opening day.

461. Paulaner - March 13, 2009

#460 Re: McCoy

Not all fans are the same. I am a hard-core trekker and I feel very comfortable with something fresh and new, so I think that this movie is for me, as well as for the general audience. I will surely see it again and again.

462. Oxmyx - March 13, 2009

459. McCoy Very good!
444: thorsten

This is Ikarie XB 1 (Czechoslovakia 1961)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyraLxGHgzo&eurl=http://www.mojevideo.cz/view_youtube_video.php?id=90
and trailer for East Germany:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrm7tiYaJo
and photo
http://dvdfreak.bloudil.cz/freak.php?p=ikariexb1&dz=0
and bridge:
http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/7248/ik1dx9.jpg

463. Oxmyx - March 13, 2009

Sorry: Czechoslovakia 1963

Trailer for USA – nice bridge
http://www.sms.cz/film/ikarie_xb_1_ikarie_xb_1/ukazka

Roddenberry inspiration lol

464. thorsten - March 13, 2009

@459…

Yes, McCoy, that’s it… here is a picture of the famous Iron…

http://tinyurl.com/cuerkb

465. Harry Ballz - March 13, 2009

#461 “I will surely see it again and again”

I, for one, would like to see it ONCE before I commit to such a campaign!

466. Daren Doc - March 13, 2009

#452 Jeff C….

and you STILL misspelled Matt Jefferies name. :)

467. Dom - March 13, 2009

435. Star Trackie: ‘apparently the integrity of Treks 40 year history means a lot more to some than to others. Some are willing to give the new guys a free pass across the board, which I don’t get, unless they re 24th century spin-off fans who never had a big emotional investment with TOS to begin with.’

Now ***that*** argument is straying dangerously into horrid ‘true fan’ territory! I’m a mainly-TOS fan and I can’t wait to see a new Kirk, Spock and McCoy film!

I’m also completely ready to accept a complete overhaul for a new film made for the 21st century. And I hope the timeline established in the new film stays intact, with a destroyed Vulcan, dead George Kirk, rebel-without-a-cause Kirk or whatever.

I want this film to tear up the rulebook and make anything possible. This film, with its new universe and open future, represents Star Trek’s emancipation from its biggest bind: itself. We can once again have a Star Trek that is truly of its time, that no longer needs to tie itself all the way back to 1965.

End of the day, Star Trek is a pulp sci-fi franchise owned by a major Hollywood Studio who have the right to do whatever they want with it! No one has the right to dictate what Paramount do with series, because only Paramount own it. I hope the ‘true fan’ brigade do boycott this film, because I don’t think I can sit through two hours of them whinging in the cinema seats behind me about the colour of the bridge rail!

I’ve invested a minute portion of 30-odd years of my life in Star Trek but that doesn’t give me the right to demand anything. For the first time in about 20 years Ican see something radical being done Trek.

And for people worrying that the whingers here represent the majority view: they don’t. They just like to ‘thcweam and thcweam until they thick’ and make more noise than anyone else.

Anthony pointed out in another thread, IIRC, that people who vote negatively in polls are more likely to post here than people who vote positively.

I hope the people who moan about this film don’t go to see it. And if they do see it and hate the film, I hope they stomp off and never come back. Star Trek doesn’t need those sorts of ‘fans’ . . . and the new film should get more than enough fans to replace them!

I walked away from Trek after Generations and didn’t come back until this film was announced. I certainly didn’t sit around message fora bleating about not liking the current incarnation of Trek. I found other shows to watch!

468. AJ - March 13, 2009

460:.McCoy

“Something that seems to get lost on most posts here is that the newbies don’t care about the details we cherish.”

Who is “we?”

I think the majority here supports a 21st century update of the Bridge and the ship, etc., but perhaps with less of an eye toward “supercool,” and an more emphasis on practicality and userfriendliness for what is a military vessel designed for long missions.

Is that the “we” you are a part of?

Then there are those who want the exact 1960s Bridge and ship. Is that your “we?”

And if the “newbies” come out for the actors and SFX, hopefully they’ll get a whole lot more, and become fans.

469. Cervantes - March 13, 2009

I wasn’t one of those that expected (nor wished) an exact recreation of the original TOS series Production designs where the Enterprise, Bridge, and other interior sets were concerned. While I’m happy with the look of the corridors that I’ve seen, I truly detest the final Enterprise, and Bridge designs.

I’ve personally seen several different ways of how I’d have far preferred these two iconic designs to have be ‘re-imaged’, that would have been ultra-cool compared to these final versions, I’m sorry to say….in my own opinion of course.

470. Paulaner - March 13, 2009

#464 “I, for one, would like to see it ONCE before I commit to such a campaign!”

I have seen abominations like “Generations” and “Nemesis” over and over again, so that’s not a difficult task ;)

471. Paulaner - March 13, 2009

#466 Dom “I want this film to tear up the rulebook and make anything possible. This film, with its new universe and open future, represents Star Trek’s emancipation from its biggest bind: itself. We can once again have a Star Trek that is truly of its time, that no longer needs to tie itself all the way back to 1965.”

Really well said. I respect every opinion, but I want to point out that there are hard-core TOS fans that are ready to embrace a new vision. We are not the same.

472. Star Trackie - March 13, 2009

#436 “That’s completely ridiculous for starters. Sure, the ship could look different..”

So you’re totally OK with the idea of an elderly HArrison Ford, traveling back in time, as Han Solo, in a Star Wars movie, to the era of A new Hope and flying HIS Millenium Falcon, that has now been re-designed to look like the Jupiter 2 from Lost in Space. ..hmmm….okay. Interesting. We’ll just leave it at that.

473. Databrain - March 13, 2009

458 said:

‘I want one that my friends and family will actually be interested in seeing. We need new fans to the franchise, if you get them interested in the new movie then maybe, just maybe they’ll start checking out all that has come before.’

This is an oxymoron. You can’t have ‘fans’ that are only marginally into trek. Nor can you have people who are introduced to the geek aspect of TOS and TNG through a more ‘accessible version’ of roddenberries vision, because there is no accessible version of it. The closest you will get to having it both ways is one of TOS films. And who knows if they pulled in any casual non-geek trek fans. It is a silly premise to start with. It is like saying ‘maybe people will want to get into the work of Carl Jung if we just hire a translator who changes a few words here and there to make it more readable’. No, by changing some of the words you are changing some of the meaning thus the impact of the theories he espoused.

And I wanted to add to all of the ‘why do you keep visiting this site, it’s just a piece of entertainment’ people. You are doing a great job of coming across as die hards yourself. If it is ‘just a piece of entertainment’ why do you have to continuously repeat the phrase to people? Why are you monitoring everything everyone says and thus being on cue to respond with this phrase every single time? For non-chalant ‘it’s just a piece of entertainment’ types, you’re sure making a grand effort. In theory if you really felt this way you would just let the ‘crazy’ roddenberry visionists have their say while quietly laughing at us. But no, it seems increasingly important to you that your supposedly ambivalent voice be heard. You are not fooling anyone. You are 1-JJ fans and 2-Perhaps, at some point, casual trek viewers.

474. Databrain - March 13, 2009

And the reason for my previous statement is that no geek level trekkies have ever simply labeled it a mere ‘piece of entertainment’. It stands to reason that anyone who says this is a casual viewer only.

475. Holger - March 13, 2009

455 Krikzil: You hit on the nail!

Isn’t it paradoxical that people complain about as much about the complaining in here as people complain about Trek details?

476. Databrain - March 13, 2009

457 said:

‘I want one that my friends and family will actually be interested in seeing. We need new fans to the franchise, if you get them interested in the new movie then maybe, just maybe they’ll start checking out all that has come before.’

This is not true. It was the hardcore trekkies who were responsible for the most successful era in trek history, I.E the mid-90s TNG geek era. Again and again we must repeat the fact that TNG garnered more viewership than any of the other incarnations of trek before or since, despite how ‘geeked out’ and aimed solely at ‘hardcore trekkies’ it was. There is no way around this truth. Geek era trek is what brought it back to life.

477. Databrain - March 13, 2009

ah I quoted the wrong post last time I meant to quote 455 but for some reason it didn’t copy.

‘You see, Voyager and Enterprise were made for the trek nerds like me. And we watched just enough to keep it MOR (middle of the road), but our hardcore group isnt’ large enough to keep it going. Or to keep it entertaining.’

-This is not true. It was the hardcore trekkies who were responsible for the most successful era in trek history, I.E the mid-90s TNG geek era. Again and again we must repeat the fact that TNG garnered more viewership than any of the other incarnations of trek before or since, despite how ‘geeked out’ and aimed solely at ‘hardcore trekkies’ it was. There is no way around this truth. Geek era trek is what brought it back to life.

478. Databrain - March 13, 2009

And I disagree that enterprise was made for trek geeks. It was berman and bragas attempt at making it more accessible, and it failed miserably. People should have learned from that lesson and not tried to make it more accessible again.

479. AJ - March 13, 2009

473:

Databrain, you are treading in “true fan” territory.

We all obsess in our own way over Trek, and some feel it necessary to recognize the property as filmed entertainment and ancillary products in order to make it a less intrusive part of their lives.

I am a super Trekfan since 1972, and I am all for the changes because Trek has been terrible for a long time. It died. If this is what it takes to revive it as an important entertainment business for its owners and fans, then I support it.

480. The Jui$tain - March 13, 2009

#472–Well then explain to me why my friends, who’ve never even been interested in Trek whatsoever, can’t wait to see the movie. Most of them have started watching TOS at cbs.com! Now they’re getting their fiends to watch it and their families too. As well as e-mailing some other friends in other states!

Can’t you see what you said doesn’t happen is happening! They saw the trailers, and up until this new one they just laughed at it. But when they saw trailer #3 it really changed something in their minds about Trek.

Now they’re hungry for anything Trek, now everytime I see them they give me the vulcan salute. Which is funny seeing as a month ago they didn’t even know what it was….

Anyways,
*J

481. Holger - March 13, 2009

477 Databrain: “People should have learned from that lesson and not tried to make it more accessible again.”

It makes a big difference if it’s Trek for TV or Trek for the movie screen. The movies have always been ‘geeked down’ – well, maybe except for TMP.
So I don’t think you can transfer the ‘lesson’ learned from supposedly geeky TNG on TV to the big screen.

While I agree that TNG was pretty geeky, there must have been plenty of other aspects to it in order to account for its mass success in the 90s.

482. krikzil - March 13, 2009

“Isn’t it paradoxical that people complain about as much about the complaining in here as people complain about Trek details?”

I understand debating about the actual shows and movies and whatnot even when I don’t particularly agree with the post, but this above-it -all attitude of superiority or mocking/labeling people is beyond me — you know like “purists”, “canonistas” and “roddenberry visionists” and all the other silly labels.

“It’s not self-indulgent to raise the point their complaining is what kept Trek medicore for more than ten years. And their complaining is what leads these new artists to second-guess their instincts.”

Not everyone thought it was mediocre. Star Trek had a good run but like all things, nothing lasts forever. IF you are an artist, fans are ALWAYS going to criticize. (Can’t stand the heat, get out of the writer’s room.) Berman and Braga never struck me as second guessing a thing either. THAT was a chief complaint amonst a lot of fans — that they didn’t listen to the fans!

As for “new” –I don’t have problems with changes per se. They just need to be logical in my mind. I’ve watched every single episode of all the Treks save one season of ENT — the illogic I saw in the whole Vulcan storyline finally turned me off even though I really liked the cast.

“I want everyone to see what I like about Star Trek.”

A tad self-indulgent? Is this even viable? Don’t we all like trek for many different reasons?

483. What is it with you? - March 13, 2009

475

“This is not true. It was the hardcore trekkies who were responsible for the most successful era in trek history, I.E the mid-90s TNG geek era. ”

Databrain, you’ve overstated this.

Trek geeks weren’t responsible for TNG’s ratings. Here’s and example. My wife used to watch TNG, as did most of my friends in university. It was for the mainstream. And they loved it. They were the ones that kept it going, not the “true” fans.

But they all stopped watching after TNG went off the air. I recall my wife tried Voyager for a little while, and soon gave up – comparing it to a “nerd soap opera”. I was left alone, with fans like you, watching it slowly die in a storm of technobabble and increasingly constraining cannon. All the while I felt like a bigger geek for loving it as it became more marginalized.

You see, I couldn’t be happier that my wife and brother wants to see this new movie with me. That’s something I’ve been waiting for since Generations.

Heck, I don’t like the barcode scanners either! But I see the larger picture. I want this to be new and exciting, and I’m willing to accept some (heck a lot) of dilution of the cannon and “vision” to get an entertaining, story-driven Trek back on the big screen.

If that doesn’t make me a true fan, then sorry, I guess I’m not. We’ll leave that up to you.

484. New Horizon - March 13, 2009

479. The Jui$tain – March 13, 2009

Yup, I’m seeing this happening too. I’m left bewildered by it…thinking….’when did they like Trek?’.

485. krikzil - March 13, 2009

#482–I don’t think you can really compare TNG and Voyager…or DS9 for that matter. And the geeks (I count myself as one as well so no insult intended) did contribute to its success. (Fanboys do influence our culture — look at Comic Con for example.) I think TNG was popular for a variety of reasons — timing was good for one. (As for technobabble, it had just as much as all that followed; heck it created it!) Voyager didn’t do as well for many reasons — it was the 4th Trek , it had a female captain, the actress playing her apparently bothered a lot of folks, it was set in another quadrant and removed from the main Trek universe and perhaps there was just too dang much Trek in the end which caused viewer fatigue and confusion.

I’m not really sure Trek will ever have super mainstream appeal. (I say that as a fan for over 30 years. I don’t want to have Trek watered down just to win mainstream approval either. Things that are enormously popular in our society aren’t necessarily “good” and have a short shelf life.

486. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#475—“Again and again we must repeat the fact that TNG garnered more viewership than any of the other incarnations of trek before or since, despite how ‘geeked out’ and aimed solely at ‘hardcore trekkies’ it was. There is no way around this truth. Geek era trek is what brought it back to life.”

So now we are comparing 7 years of TNG (when most Americans had 2-3 television sets in their homes) to 3 years of TOS (when half of Americans still did not have one at all)?

There may be no way around that “truth”, but what is that “truth” really worth? There is no equal ground upon which to compare television ratings bewteen a late 80’s-early 90’s series and one that was aired in the mid-late 60’s. For one thing, the current ratings system wasn’t even in place (part of the reason the network prematurely cancelled TOS)!

Since ST09 is a feature film, shall we talk about what the TNG-era films did in comparison to their “original” counterparts?

The “Geek-Trek era” had little success at the box office.

487. doubting thomas - March 13, 2009

i believe i speak for all of star trek fandom when i say “to hell with the box office”.

488. Holger - March 13, 2009

krikzil: “the geeks (I count myself as one as well so no insult intended)”

Just for the record, the same is true for my usage of ‘geek’.

I’m rated super-geek at the online geek test :-)

489. Star Trackie - March 13, 2009

#475 “Again and again we must repeat the fact that TNG garnered more viewership than any of the other incarnations of trek before or since..”

Actually the authors of the excellent book on the making of Ds9 debunked this myth and found that the number of viewers TNG enjoyed in it’s peak were almost equal to that of TOS during the height of it’s 3 year run. TNG ran longer (due to the needs of modren syndication) but never enjoyed a larger auidence.

Don’t argue with me, argue with Judith Reeves-Stevens and Garfield Reeves-Stevens.

490. Alex Rosenzweig - March 13, 2009

#485 – “Since ST09 is a feature film, shall we talk about what the TNG-era films did in comparison to their “original” counterparts?

The “Geek-Trek era” had little success at the box office.”

Well, they compared largely favorably to the original-era films made after Trek went back to TV. ;)

The key wasn’t just the content of the films. It also seems to have had a great deal to do with the idea that Trek was running concurrently on television, with two series simultaneously during the runs of “First Contact” and “Insurrection”.

It will be illustrative, I think, to see how the new film does without simultaneous new Trek on TV. I think that situation will help it.

491. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#486—“i believe i speak for all of star trek fandom when i say “to hell with the box office”.

Nope.

492. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#487—“…super-geek…”

Isn’t that a Rick James song?

:)

493. Holger - March 13, 2009

491: I paid him so much money for making this song about me and then he got the title wrong! ;-)

494. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#492—That’s showbusiness for you!

495. pock speared - March 13, 2009

i really like the new bridge. one thing it shares with TOS’s aesthetic is that for the first time in a long time the bridge is a cheerful, well-lit place.

yo databrain; are you aware of the period when philip k. dick started to believe his work was “real”, not sci-fi? it was mostly amphetamine psychosis, but he really began to show a paranoid side that sounds a lot like your ranting to me. “super geeks” are the only ones who care? they saved star trek? what are you mixing with your mountain dew, babe?

i for one have been watching and supporting la trek since it was competing with laugh-in, and have no delusions about myself being the reason it survived, died, and is currently being resurrected. the new film is all wonderful to me.

496. doubting thomas - March 13, 2009

the original series bridge was never cheerful and well-lit, it was rather dark, darker even than the E’s bridge, on about the level of the voyager’s bridge.

497. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#489—“It will be illustrative, I think, to see how the new film does without simultaneous new Trek on TV. I think that situation will help it.”

Perhaps.

I think it was far more than just the fact that Star Trek was running concurrently on television and on the big screen, particularly in the case of STV and STVI. STIV was really that cast at its peak, IMO.

I also think that STV was so poorly done that STVI had a pretty big mountain to climb in order to overcome that.

Even for me—a lifelong Star Trek fan—STVI was the last Star Trek movie I paid any money to see. I can only speak for myself, but having seen the last 4 movies on television—I do not think I missed out on anything.

Somehow, it is difficult for me to believe that those movies would have been received any better if Star Trek spinoffs were not running on television.

Even the best of the TNG-era films, “First Contact”, still ranks a mere ‘distant 4th’ (when adjusted for inflation) among Star Trek feature films in total gross.

498. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#495—-“the original series bridge was never cheerful and well-lit, it was rather dark, darker even than the E’s bridge, on about the level of the voyager’s bridge.”

Have you even seen TOS?

499. Databrain - March 13, 2009

482 said:

‘Trek geeks weren’t responsible for TNG’s ratings. Here’s and example. My wife used to watch TNG, as did most of my friends in university. It was for the mainstream. And they loved it. They were the ones that kept it going, not the “true” fans.’

This is anecdotal evidence at best. I would like to also point out that the mid-90s geek era of trek is also the time of the greatest convention activity. Hence the reason they decided to base a documentary film (trekkies) on the phenomenon. So I could just as easily say that the convention circuit indicates what the truth was as well, but this would be equally anecdotal. The truth in either case though is that whoever was watching TNG, they weren’t watching it because it was more accessible, because it was the most geeked out version of trek to date.

500. thorsten - March 13, 2009

@497…

Hi CT… nightbridge:
http://tinyurl.com/amoyh8

daybridge:
http://tinyurl.com/boqgx5

;))

501. Databrain - March 13, 2009

480 said:

‘While I agree that TNG was pretty geeky, there must have been plenty of other aspects to it in order to account for its mass success in the 90s.’

I would say it pulled in more geek-era niche fans as opposed to appealing to the masses as much as some think.

502. thorsten - March 13, 2009

@494…

you are talking about good old Horselover Fat, right?

503. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#498—“… it was the most geeked out version of trek to date.”

And its last outing (even without adjusting for 13 years of inflation) at the box office fared far worse than even “Shatner’s Great Trek Turd Of ’89”, despite playing in 500 more theaters domestically.

I wouldn’t want that distinction.

504. McCoy - March 13, 2009

Woops. I guess some of my comments did get a bit close to “true fan” sounding. With “we” I really meant those of us who are not really satisfied with the designs. Sorry to offend or otherwise add anyone on to my rant.

Thorsten… the iron is cool!

505. thorsten - March 13, 2009

@503…

The put up quite an effort for 1966…
The ship, the Orion VII and later the VIII, is controlled not only by the iron, but with fancy pencil sharpeners, too. And it was cool sixties SFTV, more than six years before Trek came to germany in 72 ;))

506. JT - March 13, 2009

443 thatsums it up! I agree!

507. The Jui$tain - March 13, 2009

Concerning the so called ‘iBridge’, well at least it’s not Microsoft Windows Star Trek: Starship Edition….. :)

#483–It’s just plain weird. But like I said it’s happening, people are telling their friends who in turn are telling their friends and so on. Which is really kinda exciting for me as the one who sort of started it and as a Trek fan.

Back to watchin ENT on HDNet…..
*J

508. The Jui$tain - March 13, 2009

I meant the one who started it for my friends, i’m tired……

*J

509. krikzil - March 13, 2009

“Isn’t that a Rick James song?”

Hah! Too bad no one ever did a parody song using it.

“I would like to also point out that the mid-90s geek era of trek is also the time of the greatest convention activity”

I can attest to this. I’ve ben conning since I was 13 back in the dark ages of the 70s (I got to see a promo for STAR WARS back then by Lucasfilm, heh heh) and nothing has ever beat the crowds during the TNG era. It rather freaked me out to be honest cause we were like….wha???!! But then I realized it was good for Trek and fandom. I love cons….still go to at least one a year. I also noticed TNG con attendees skewed proto-typically fanboyish — young males — but there were also a lot of families present which was cool.

510. Christine - March 13, 2009

#497; Closettrekker :: “…Even the best of the TNG-era films, “First Contact”, still ranks a mere ‘distant 4th’ (when adjusted for inflation) among Star Trek feature films in total gross. …”

Which I think is kind of sad, because “First Contact” was certainly the best of the TNG films. I actually really liked “Nemesis”, but that was mainly for the really epic slamming of the “E” into Shinzon’s vessel… BULLSEYE!

“…I also think that STV was so poorly done that STVI had a pretty big mountain to climb in order to overcome that….”

Agreed. ST:V was the first ‘Trek movie I saw that I really didn’t care for. Still, ST:TUD basically made up for it, because (in my opinion) it. Was. AWESOME.

#487; D. Thomas :: “…i believe i speak for all of star trek fandom when i say “to hell with the box office”. …”

You may be right, but if we ever want Trek fandom to grow… then the box office is going to matter more than we like. The franchise needs this movie; it NEEDS this publicity. It’s been a “small cult-like” group too long. The next generation, MY generation, needs to get into it.

#477; Databrain: “…Geek era trek is what brought it back to life….”

Actually, I think more the movies did. Had the first 5 feature films not come out, or the first 4 (whatever), then there may have been no incentive to bring back the franchise.

#460 :: “….Something that seems to get lost on most posts here is that the newbies don’t care about the details we cherish. Or the continuity. ..”

Excuse me? ExCUSE ME?! All right, that is totally not true.

I am what you guys would call a “newbie”. I’ve been into the franchise for less that a year. Yet, I’ve become completely obsessed with every detail and part of Star Trek to the point where I mention ‘Trek in all my English themes. New fans CAN get into that kind of thing — New fans like ME. Yes, I am going to the movie, and I love the fact that Quinto & Pine are in it, but that’s not WHY I’m going. I’m going because it’s ‘Trek. And ‘Trek is what I love.

511. McCoy - March 13, 2009

510.

I’m striking out today. LOL. Didn’t mean to include people like you in “newbies”. I meant “newbies” as people who will encounter Trek for the first time with the movie. The group JJ is trying to attract—who have yet decided they like Star Trek. The people for whom JJ has made changes for.

512. doubting thomas - March 13, 2009

“You may be right, but if we ever want Trek fandom to grow… then the box office is going to matter more than we like. The franchise needs this movie; it NEEDS this publicity. It’s been a “small cult-like” group too long. The next generation, MY generation, needs to get into it.”

but here’s the problem. they’ve been saying that this movie is not aimed at star trek fans

when i first heard that, i thought they meant their intended audience was people who were not yet star trek fans

they’ve since made it clear that their intended audience is people who never would be star trek fans, people who would not like star trek. which means this movie will not be star trek. so remind me again why star trek needs a non star trek movie?

513. pock speared - March 13, 2009

512
“so remind me again why star trek needs a non star trek movie?”

a non-star trek movie would be “star wars: the clone wars” or “porky’s III”. if kirk, spock and mcoy show up on a ship called enterprise with a guy named nimoy in the cast, you not only have a star trek movie, but probably more of a star trek movie than the last four films with that name in the title combined.

no one (but a few spleen victims here) have described this film as “not aimed at fans”, just not aimed only at them. and “fan” is a highly subjective term around here. again, i’m a real old fan and again, this film is a dream come true right down to the barcode scanners that offend me about as much as a salt shaker.

besides, i have a hard time with someone who recalls the bridge of TOS as “dark”. are you sure you’re not just talking about your childhood?

514. The Jui$tain - March 13, 2009

“No matter what you think of Abrams, he is an artist who understands characterization and story. As far as the Trek mythos goes, he shows in the EW article that he has an understanding of its inner core: optimism. The Star Trek universe shows us that no matter how bad things get, a peaceful, prosperous, and rational future is still attainable. Star Trek is the model for that future, populated by characters worth cheering for. If Abrams has his ducks in a row concerning that (and I believe he does), the rest should take care of itself.”

-http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/news/star-trek-fans-can-relax-jj-abrams-gets-it.php

I think this guy has the the proverbial nail on the head. Star Trek is the model for that future and ours as well. It gives us a sense of hope and optimism for our future, to see the light at the end of the dark tunnel as it were.

#513–Have to agree with you, especially in your second paragraph.

The wait is (almost) over…. ;)
*J

515. The Jui$tain - March 13, 2009

*Has hit the proverbial nail on the head.* Darn typos…

*J

516. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#512—“they’ve since made it clear that their intended audience is people who never would be star trek fans, people who would not like star trek. ”

Perhaps you mean—people who have not been fans in the past, and people who have preconceived notions about Star Trek that may have prevented them from giving it a chance at all.

“which means this movie will not be star trek. ”

And what exactly is the criteria, in your mind, that defines “Star Trek”?

Furthermore, what do you believe will be a part of this film that makes it “not Star Trek”?

517. McCoy - March 13, 2009

516. “Furthermore, what do you believe will be a part of this film that makes it “not Star Trek”?”

I can answer that:

1) the communicator
2) the tricorder
3) the phaser
4) the Uglyprise
5) the BrightBridge
6) the ShinyHallway
7) Spock’s voice (OMG)
8) the shuttles (BSG?)
9) the “surprised by the modern technology” Scotty
10) Uhura’s bra shot
11) Kirk in underwear (ok, that one may be debatable)
12) the motorcycle
13) Corvette
14) Chekov old enough to be a member of Pike’s crew
15) Pike as father figure to Kirk
16) Delta shields now used everywhere
17) 2009-era Bar Code Scanners

I’m sure I missed some

518. Closettrekker - March 13, 2009

#517—“I’m sure I missed some”

That’s quite the understatement. I don’t think you’ve hit one yet!

You’d better get back to batting practice!

519. Bradley1701 - March 13, 2009

Gene Roddenberry said this 18 years ago:

“I feel that we’ve got such good people in Hollywood, and will in future as well, that I would be happy to have a Star Trek come on in 15 or 20 years where people say, “Now that is good! That makes Roddenberry look like nothing!” And that would please me! ”

Roddenberry obviously had faith in what others could do with his show in the future. Fans should as well.

The one thing Trek has taught us is to think outside of the box and not be so rigid about things…IDIC

520. kmart - March 13, 2009

519,
GR was looking at posterity at that point, covering his all-too-mortal ass. Read Melinda Snodgrass’ comments about GR and Berman (I think it was in OMNI’s TUC issue, and probably in the afterwords to the Ellison COTEOF book) about those who are looking at their place in the history books instead of doing what is right.

If YOU’d be a little less rigid, you’d un-deify GR and see him for somebody who was insanely lucky to get Gene Coon to save his ass and create a semi-viable show that lasted long enough to get swept up into a cult, followed by all the rest. Take Coon out of the equation and I don’t know that you’d even have season 2 of Trek, regardless of how many color sets got sold in 1966.

517,

I think he hit it on just about all cylinders, and that isn’t even getting into the questionable EXECUTION of those aspects. The obligatory ‘daddy’ figure and all that is just so hokey, so TOP GUN (which SHOULD be an insult to TREK, given the inherent jingoism), so … awful and pedantic.

521. McCoy - March 13, 2009

519: “The one thing Trek has taught us is to think outside of the box and not be so rigid about things…IDIC”

There’s a difference between **creating a new Trek film** and **creating a new Trek film that revisits TOS**.

The visual design parameters for a new Trek film set in a timeline after TNG is wide-open. The visuals for a film that revisits TOS is not. If your task is to go somewhere the audience has been before—you need to communicate that effectively. This film does not (from what we have been shown).

If there is a sliding scale with “new” on one end and “clone” on the other, the designs for this new film would lean more heavily toward “new”. You cannot effectively communicate “going back” using that design philosophy. Time travel for a reboot is a bad idea. Production designs would be all over the place for a philosophy that requires a fresh look. We see that here.

There are production design professionals in the world. It is a craft. Since it involves the communication of ideas the result is not suppose to be subjective like fine art. Therefore, the designs for this film are either good, bad or somewhere in the middle. I’m going for “bad”.

522. Bradley1701 - March 13, 2009

#520 – You read incorrectly. I wasn’t doing any such thing in regards to GR. I was simply trying to make a point that the creator of the show said that he would be pleased if someone in the future took his show and made it much better.

There is also a quote from him somewhere on the net where he said he wanted the crew of the TOS enterprise to continue and that he wanted someone to revisit it, etc.

I’m just saying, that if the creator of the show was so open to people revisiting TOS in the future, that perhaps the fans should be as well.

Gene may not have been perfect…but if it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t have had Star Trek…would we?

523. Christine - March 13, 2009

#517 :: From where you’re standing on that list, reading all that… It sure as heck LOOKS like Star Trek to me, hm?
If you ask me, I’ll say they could have done a lot worse… Not that they’ve done bad right now. Not bad at all.

#522 :: “..Gene may not have been perfect…but if it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t have had Star Trek…would we?…”

That’s exactly right. I think, in a sense, this movie is almost paying homage to his original vision… With a young cast and cutting-edge special effects, of course. :3

524. Jeff C - March 13, 2009

Wow. We’re up to 522 posts? This is an excellent and heated series of comments. We’ve gone from attacking and defending the design choices of Mr. Chambliss (who gave us such Science Fiction design epics as Felicity, Brothers and Sisters and Swingtown) to attacking and defending Gene Roddenberry.

I call that real progress.

We really are a bunch of whining uber-fanatics, aren’t we?

I wonder if everything is so heated over this film because we all know deep down that this is it, the final chance. If this film dies at the box office, then that is pretty much it for Star Trek.

But what happens if it is a success?

Will we get any other adventures or new shows in the 24th Century? The 25th Century? Will Star Trek return to television? Even as an inexpensive animated show, to tide over audiences like what they did with Transformers (i just threw up in my mouth a little by mentioning that movie–but the cartoon is great, my nephew loves it)?

Or will this crew, this ship, this Universe be it?

For some fans , that must bring up an awful realization. That no matter what happens, the old universe that meant so much to them will never come back, outside a comic book or novel. Their Star Trek will still be dead.
So, for those fans, how will this movie change anything?

What do you guys think?

525. AJ - March 14, 2009

521:

I think you have a valid point. However, this production design is ostensibly meant more to attract new fans who have no familiarity with TOS. The numbers will show that these folks are the vast majority of ticket buyers.

What will be more telling is the PD of the Kelvin’s Bridge and interior, as she begins the film in the “prime” timeline. The brief glimpses we’ve had point to something more “TOS-y.” What we should look for is a logical design progression from Kelvin to Enterprise in the new timeline.

526. Holger - March 14, 2009

524 Jeff C: “We really are a bunch of whining uber-fanatics, aren’t we?”

My impression is rather that the whining about the whining, and the bashing that goes along with it has become the most dominant form of whining in this forum!

Of course you may now complain about the whining about the whining about the whining, etc. etc. ;-)
But I have a suggestion: why don’t we just drop it and discuss issues of the shows instead of people’s attitudes about them? (see also #482)

527. New Horizon - March 14, 2009

521. McCoy – March 13, 2009
“There’s a difference between **creating a new Trek film** and **creating a new Trek film that revisits TOS**.”

No, not really. IDIC

“The visual design parameters for a new Trek film set in a timeline after TNG is wide-open. The visuals for a film that revisits TOS is not.”

Why?

“If your task is to go somewhere the audience has been before—you need to communicate that effectively. This film does not (from what we have been shown).”

How? Same characters. Same ship. Only new Actors and new Designs. TOS is not a real place. It was a television show. As has been said so many times, to the point of projectile vomiting, audiences have seen the 23rd century through the eyes…or shall we say telescopes of the 1960’s, this is how the 23rd century looks in 2009. Get your head around it son.

“If there is a sliding scale with “new” on one end and “clone” on the other, the designs for this new film would lean more heavily toward “new”. You cannot effectively communicate “going back” using that design philosophy. Time travel for a reboot is a bad idea. Production designs would be all over the place for a philosophy that requires a fresh look. We see that here.”

Nothing wrong with a fresh look…or a completely different look.

528. Holger - March 14, 2009

527: “audiences have seen the 23rd century through the eyes…or shall we say telescopes of the 1960’s, this is how the 23rd century looks in 2009.”

Sorry, but this is nonsensical.
You can say that in 2009 there is a new vision of how the 23rd century may look like, and that there was a different vision in the 1960s. I guess this is what you mean.
But one and the same fictional 23rd century cannot look one way if seen from the perspective of 1966, and another way if seen from 2009. We’re talking about two different fictional universes then (they may be part of the same multiverse, though, as Bob Orci has announced), and that is exactly the point which has stirred up so much criticism: this new thing is not the same universe we have seen in TOS.

529. Sam Belil - March 14, 2009

#517 – McCoy perfectly STATED!!!
Additionally I have seen many posts asking “What if this film is a success?” Well lets put it this way, box office success ($$$$$$) does not guarantee CRITICAL SUCCESS, conversely CRICITCAL SUCCESS does not guarantee box office success. The more I read and the more I see, I believe the following…

1-This is NO WAY an origin story (hey NOT ONE MENTION of Sam Kirk!!!)
2-This is an alternate timeline origin story
3-This seems to be more of an action-flick not true Star Trek
4-The BEST STOS stories were about human drama/sci-fi(Court Martial, Menagerie, City of the Edge of Forever — I can go on and on)
5-Abrams and company attempt to reach out to non-trekkers will be futile
6-Either you love STOS or hate it, that how it has always been
7-People who hated ST in the 60s,70s,80’s,90, 2000s – are not going so suddenly fall in love with the franchise because of this film
8-And that is Abrams big mistake thinking that he can win over the non-believers with his intrepretation of the STOS franchise.
9-For me at least — to believe that Pike commanded Uhura and Chekov is an insult to my intelligence
10-For me to believe that Kirk, Sulu, Chekov and Uhurua all entered ST academy at the same time is an insult to my intelligence
11-It will really take some serious convnicing and story telling for me and I believe most STOS fans to buy that.

Thorsten — if you’re out there, FIRSTLY, my warmest regards!
Secondly I SO want to buy into this!!!
Please, prove me wrong again :-)

530. Sam Belil - March 14, 2009

#517 – McCoy perfectly STATED!!!
Additionally I have seen many posts asking “What if this film is a success?” Well lets put it this way, box office success ($$$$$$) does not guarantee CRITICAL SUCCESS, conversely CRICITCAL SUCCESS does not guarantee box office success. The more I read and the more I see, I believe the following…

1-This is NO WAY an origin story (hey NOT ONE MENTION of Sam Kirk!!!)
2-This is an alternate timeline origin story
3-This seems to be more of an action-flick not true Star Trek
4-The BEST STOS stories were about human drama/sci-fi(Court Martial, Menagerie, City of the Edge of Forever — I can go on and on)
5-Abrams and company attempt to reach out to non-trekkers will be futile
6-Either you love STOS or hate it, that how it has always been
7-People who hated ST in the 60s,70s,80’s,90, 2000s – are not going so suddenly fall in love with the franchise because of this film
8-And that is Abrams big mistake thinking that he can win over the non-believers with his intrepretation of the STOS franchise.
9-For me at least — to believe that Pike commanded Uhura and Chekov is an insult to my intelligence
10-For me to believe that Kirk, Sulu, Chekov and Uhurua all entered ST academy at the same time is an insult to my intelligence
11-It will really take some serious convnicing and story telling for me and I believe most STOS fans to buy that.

Thorsten — if you’re out there, FIRSTLY, my warmest regards!
Secondly I SO want to buy into this!!!
Please, prove me wrong again :-)

531. Closettrekker - March 14, 2009

#517—“I can answer that:

1) the communicator
2) the tricorder
3) the phaser
4) the Uglyprise
5) the BrightBridge
6) the ShinyHallway
Re: These are all a product of an artist’s re-interpretation of a fictional future setting, taking into account the passage of 40+ years of perspective-altering time, as well as a $150 million budget.

7) Spock’s voice (OMG)
Re: Are you kidding me? It’s not the same actor!

8) the shuttles (BSG?)
Re: I don’t watch BSG, but again–your problem is with an artist’s creative choice for the look of a spacecraft. That doesn’t make it “not Star Trek”. There have always been shuttles in 23rd Century Starfleet.

9) the “surprised by the modern technology” Scotty
Re: I have to say—you’re not even making any sense here.

10) Uhura’s bra shot
Re: Did you think Nichelle Nichols never wore a bra?

11) Kirk in underwear (ok, that one may be debatable)
Re: Why? TOS didn’t show us that, right? It must not be Star Trek.

12) the motorcycle
13) Corvette
Re: I suppose he should have been on horseback?

14) Chekov old enough to be a member of Pike’s crew
Re: I don’t like this choice either, nor did I like Nimoy and Bennett’s decision to retcon the age of the Enterprise back in 1984. But as much as I didn’t like it, it did not prevent TSFS from being Star Trek

15) Pike as father figure to Kirk
Re: Why should an altered timeline unfold precisely the same as another one? It is abundantly clear, even just from the trailer, that Pike’s conversation in the Iowa bar is a direct result of Nero’s interference with the past. Some things are supposed to be different in this story.

16) Delta shields now used everywhere
Re: TNG Romulans suddenly had ridges, and ENT Andorians suddenly had mobile antennae. I don’t see the difference in significance.

17) 2009-era Bar Code Scanners
Re: Salt-shakers. Enough said.

The question was: “…what do you believe will be a part of this film that makes it “not Star Trek”?”

You seemed to have interpreted that as “what do you believe will be a part of this film that makes it “not TOS”?”

Two different questions.

Unless Star Trek’s universal vision of a future for Humanity in which Mankind does not destroy itself—but instead, unites to conquer the social ills which plague us today and to explore the final frontier is somehow compromised, this will absolutely be Star Trek.

Nothing you have pointed to demonstrates that vision as being left behind.

#521—“The visual design parameters for a new Trek film set in a timeline after TNG is wide-open. The visuals for a film that revisits TOS is not. If your task is to go somewhere the audience has been before—you need to communicate that effectively. ”

This is not a revisitation of TOS. TOS was (asthetically) an interpretation of what the 23rd Century might look like.

What we are “revisting” is the 23rd Century. Moreover, it has not evolved (post-2233) in the same way as was depicted in TOS. I dare say that is part of the story.

Not only should this be a 2009 interpretation of what that fictional future might look like, but the creative team behind ST09 has even provided you with a possible catalyst for what looks different (just in case your imagination is inhibited)—the timeline incursions that begin in 2233 (more than 3 decades before what was depicted in TOS).

532. pock speared - March 14, 2009

517 mccoy (and your noble supporters):

at this point you appear to have “taken a position” whereby you invalidate yourself.

cherry picking things that change, as you do in your “list”, is wholly neurotic. would you have rubber monsters, corny planet design, plastic rocks, shower curtain clad aliens, random choppy “canon” and sexist dialog as well to define “real” star trek? would you also dismiss all of the feature films based on the same criteria?

trust the writers, trust the writers, trust the writers. i firmly believe that b’orci & kurtzfella have written rings around your infantile complaints.

your ceaseless prattle sounds like a child strapped to the backseat on his way to the theme park. you just KNOW your going to hate it all, eh? we’ll see how you feel when we get there, little fella. have some more cheezy puffs and shut the hell up until we do, or i’m turning this car around and were going right back to bermanville where everything is boring, condescending and cheap.

533. Alex Rosenzweig - March 14, 2009

#517 – Really, while there are a number of things on that list that I’d agree were dubious creative choices, I don’t know that any of them would make the movie “not Star Trek”.

Now, there may be other things that end up making me classify it as “not Star Trek”, or at least a Star Trek very different than the one(s) we’ve known, but I’ll judge that based on the movie itself.

#532 – “trust the writers, trust the writers, trust the writers.”

I want to. I really, really want to. And while they were saying that they were going to tell us an origin tale that worked in with the gaps in continuity and backstory, I did trust them. But once they started going on about alternate universes and sidestepping previous continuity, they really damaged that trust. It won’t stop me from going to see the movie, but now I’m going as part of the camp that’s skeptical and will have to be won over, whereas when they started I was solidly supportive.

Now, if they resolve it all and truly end up doing what they originally said they were going to do, they will absolutely have won my trust back for the next film. :)

534. pock speared - March 14, 2009

533
that’s great alex. i think that is all anyone, skeptic or otherwise need do. i see the the script/film as a highly complex math problem that will need a little QM to make it work for all. if it fails, i feel it certainly wasn’t due to any laziness or lack of effort on the part of the film’s makers. the assumption that they’ve disregarded any concerns is contrary to anything i’ve heard…

if any childhoods get raped they will probably be the ones that either didn’t have a childhood or refuse to leave the one they did have.

my best to mr. chambliss on remarkable work.

535. pock speared - March 14, 2009

…and i might add:
that if it weren’t for the abysmal “continuity” that TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and all of the NG films created for these guys to work with, they probably would have been able to give some of the more arrogant fans something closer to what they are wishing for. it’s like trying to rebuild a lovely house that’s been torn down and covered with a shopping mall:

“we want it exactly like it was but don’t touch anything that’s covering it!”

536. Closettrekker - March 14, 2009

#530—-“1-This is NO WAY an origin story (hey NOT ONE MENTION of Sam Kirk!!!)2-This is an alternate timeline origin story”

We don’t know if Kirk’s brother is mentioned or not, and depending upon the surrounding context, I’m not even sure that it is necessary. And of course it’s “an origin story”—although clearly not “the origin story” within the timeline with which we are all familiar.

“3-This seems to be more of an action-flick not true Star Trek
4-The BEST STOS stories were about human drama/sci-fi(Court Martial, Menagerie, City of the Edge of Forever — I can go on and on)”

TOS was full of action. I cannot even begin to count the number of fight scenes and action sequences done in those 79 episodes. You even mention one of them as an example. The entire story in “Court-Martial” in part serves as a prelude to a bare-fisted showdown between Kirk and Finney. The show’s producers were not going to let that opportunity go by.

And what was one of the key elements in the story for “The Menagerie” (at least the portion of it taken from “The Cage”)? Sex!

For every “The City On The Edge Of Forever”, there were several more like “Bread And Circuses”, “Space Seed”, “Arena”, “Errand Of Mercy”, “The Trouble With Tribbles”, “Day Of The Dove”,etc.

TOS was hardly light on action, sexuality, and humor.

“5-Abrams and company attempt to reach out to non-trekkers will be futile
6-Either you love STOS or hate it, that how it has always been
7-People who hated ST in the 60s,70s,80’s,90, 2000s – are not going so suddenly fall in love with the franchise because of this film
8-And that is Abrams big mistake thinking that he can win over the non-believers with his intrepretation of the STOS franchise.”

I disagree. The demographics of fans who enjoyed TOS and the original films was often different from the type of fan who religiously followed the spinoffs. I know plenty of “non-traditional geeks” who remember fondly watching the Original Series and movies like TWOK and TVH. There was indeed a time when Star Trek had significant crossover value. Everyone knows “Khaaaaan!” and “the one with the whales”.

Star Trek did not really become a “geeks only club” until the late 80’s-early 90’s. Of course, that was always who attended conventions and read the books, etc., but there was a time when plenty of “mainstream” moviegoers paid good money to see a Kirk/Spock/McCoy/Scotty flick.

Remove the excessive technobabble and lack of action/sexuality found in TNG and what followed, and re-insert the colorful heroes of James T. Kirk, Spock, and Dr. McCoy—-and I think you’d be surprised.

“9-For me at least — to believe that Pike commanded Uhura and Chekov is an insult to my intelligence”

Chekov was a surprise and it’s a stretch to me, and I probably wouldn’t have gone that way, but Uhura? Why not? Presumably, Pike commanded the Enterprise right up until the time when Kirk took over. I’m not sure why it would be so inconceivable that Uhura could already have been aboard.

“10-For me to believe that Kirk, Sulu, Chekov and Uhurua all entered ST academy at the same time is an insult to my intelligence
11-It will really take some serious convnicing and story telling for me and I believe most STOS fans to buy that.”

Clearly, that isn’t the way it happened in the previous timeline, but I think you have to remember and take into consideration the probability that Kirk enters SFA quite a bit later than he did before.

And I’m not sure that this is any more difficult to believe than the notion that two captains and five commanders would be assigned to the same starship (STV: The Great Trek Turd Of ’89”), or that the Enterprise is consistently “the only ship in intercept range”, “the only ship in the quadrant”, etc., etc.

How is it that these scenarios do not “insult your intelligence”–yet somehow, this one does?

The circumstances depicted in Star Trek movies are rarely all that plausible.

537. Mr. Bob Dobalina - March 14, 2009

#527 “How? Same characters. Same ship. Only new Actors and new Designs. TOS is not a real place. It was a television show. ”

See, it’s this kind of mindset that I can’t wrap my brain around. All I can say is, you just don’t get it. It’s this type of mentality that can watch the smurfs, then watch Disney’s Pinochio and shrug and say “I don’t see why one is better than the other??” Certainly, quality is subjective, but regardless of personal opinion, one should be able to recognize the style and talent that helped TOS Trek sustain itself for nearly one half a century and counting. Whether one agrees with the aesthetics of TOS or whether one thinks its cheesy and laughable,it has been a large factor in it’s appeal for over 40 years, and it can’t be denied that it works and a LOT of people really REALLY like it.

So haters can continue to dis on those”cardboard” cartoony original designs all they want, or play the not -so-clever “nostalgia” card if you want, but if you really just don’t understand why so many people are not happy with the designs or Chambliss’ lack of respect for what came before, you just don’t get it nor are you likely to understand any time soon. Enjoy your shiny bobbles, for some it’s apparently all that is required.

538. pock speared - March 14, 2009

537
“shiny bobbles” was a song by don ho, sort of. “popular” about the same time as the monkee’s “zilch” was, i believe.

539. McCoy - March 14, 2009

537.

NIcely put.

540. McCoy - March 14, 2009

Tiny bubbles (tiny bubbles)
In the ship (in the ship)
Make me squinty (make me squinty)
Make me feel hip (make me feel hip)

Bar code scanners (bar code scanners)
Gotta really good deal
Gotta a little red light
Gotta plastic feel

And here’s to the rest
And the shiny hall
I did my best
Don’t slip and fall

So here’s the design
I give to you today
And here’s a wave
Cuz it will surely fade away

—Scott Ho

541. Closettrekker - March 14, 2009

#537—” if you really just don’t understand why so many people are not happy with the designs or Chambliss’ lack of respect for what came before, you just don’t get it nor are you likely to understand any time soon.”

Recognizing that the 1960’s interpretation of what the 23rd Century might look like is now dated does not equate to a lack of respect. It is not as if Chambliss is suggesting that he could have done better if he were Star Trek’s production designer more than 40 years ago. His job was to create a vision of what the mid-23rd Century might look like from the perspective of a 2009 artist, not to merely tweak someone else’s vision from 4 decades ago.

I get why some people are upset…I just think they are missing the forest for the trees.

“Whether one agrees with the aesthetics of TOS or whether one thinks its cheesy and laughable,it has been a large factor in it’s appeal for over 40 years, and it can’t be denied that it works and a LOT of people really REALLY like it. ”

I like it too. I’ve liked it since I first saw Star Trek in syndication back in the 1970’s. But even then—I knew it was a 1960’s television show, and the production designs reflected that. I continue to enjoy watching TOS, and probably always will.

But to my kids (potential future Trek fans), it does look rather silly, and I am not blind as to why. By the time my oldest son was born, those designs and that 1960’s vision of the future was already more than 30 years old. It is he and his peers who will determine whether or not Star Trek has a long term future—not you and I.

I agree with New Horizon and others who feel that, with an eye toward the future of Star Trek, simply sprucing up a 1960’s visual interpretation of the 23rd Century would be a mistake.

I don’t need this guy to pander to my childhood. If I want to see that, I can watch my new TOS-remastered blue ray disc set or download an episode of the quite nostalgic-looking “New Voyages” or “Phase II”.

I’m looking forward to seeing Star Trek get the visual treatment worthy of a $150+million Summer movie released in 2009, and I hope my kids fall in love with Star Trek’s optimistic vision of the future for Humanity as I did 30 years ago.

542. Bradley1701 - March 14, 2009

Well said, Closettrekker!!

543. Closettrekker - March 14, 2009

#542—Thanks, Badley1701!

544. Closettrekker - March 14, 2009

Oops. Sorry for the typo.

That’s “Bradley1701″.

545. thorsten - March 14, 2009

Same ship, different day…
http://thorstenwulff.com/TrekXI.jpg

@530…

Sam, my man, I was on the beach. It rained.
Now I opened a Guinnes!

To start with your first point…
SAM KIRK IS IN THE MOVIE!
He is played by Spencer Daniels.

And yes, it is an alternate timeline beginning.
But I am still totally optimistic, and have some surprises coming your way.
This is a great movie. I am 100% sure about that.
And it is not just using a week echo of TOS to sell some story no one cares about. It is the closest to TOS since 1968.

546. thorsten - March 14, 2009

Sorry to all my irish friends.
It is a Guinness.

547. Closettrekker - March 14, 2009

#545—-I forgot about the young Sam! It has been so long since that was first reported…

548. McCoy - March 14, 2009

541.

What we have ended up with is a 2008 design. Even if you try to create something that looks like the future, you’re never really going to get there obviously. Give then time travel story, you are really taking people from 2009 to 1966 and the visual designs should communicate that.

There are many reasons (other than Trek) to harken back to the late 50’s and early 60’s design ideas for this new film. Pop culture in America was more transfixed on that “optimistic” future vision than it is now. A real opportunity was missed to visually take people back to what that future looked like, before the likes of Viet Nam and even Iraq for example. The future has a certain look in our minds. Certain shapes and colors. When you reach that sweet spot, it’s no coincidence that you’ve also designed something that looks like it came from that 60’s vision. That’s why as initial research it’s a great place to start.

It’s important to be able to see thru the TOS budget issues and extrapolate what those designs might have looked like with this 150 million budget. The issue is design, not construction capability.

IMO, the individuals that like the new sets are really reacting to the money spent on them—and do not understand the need to use visual design to brand something as being “Trek”.

If the story goes back to the core of Trek, the visuals should also go back to the core. Like I’ve mentioned before, it’s a part of simple storytelling even. Star Trek’s past has a certain look. If you are taking an audience to that past, you should visually design for it (albeit with more expensive production details). Any changes from a time travel arc should not affect too many visuals because they would be serving as the reference points for the audience about where they were.

It would have been a wonderful undertone for the film to remind people about how America used to see the future.

549. Sam Belil - March 14, 2009

#536 — You misunderstood my point. Of course STOS had some great action scenes and sequences, but it was never presented as an “Action show” — neither were the movies presented as “action movies”. STWOK had excellent action but there was also a great deal of human drama and conflict in it AND that is what made it work (that is why it was probably the BEST of all ST movies)– that was STOS story telling at its BEST!!! If this movie does not have great story-telling (and I PRAY that it does) it will fail.

I just cant buy Uhura being on board at the time Kirk took over, remeber while not as young as Chekov, (at least to me) there were no indications of her being the same age as Kirk. I would have liked to see Number One and Dr. Boyce get some acknowledgement in this movie, just for continuity sake — and for that matter Gary Mitchell.

Thorsten!!! Great to hear from you!!!! I’m trying SO HARD not to be cynical!

SAM KIRK IS IN THE MOVIE! — FANTASTIC!!!
And yes, it is an alternate timeline beginning. — I guess we all suspcted that

But I am still totally optimistic, and have some surprises coming your way.
This is a great movie. I am 100% sure about that And it is not just using a week echo of TOS to sell some story no one cares about. It is the closest to TOS since 1968 — WOW — from you I take that as “etched in stone”!!!

Now I can go play hoops with my son in peace — and start my running routine again (I’m an avid runner), now that the days are longer and getting warmer in NY.

Best Regards to You Thorsten!!!!!

550. Closettrekker - March 14, 2009

#548—“Give then time travel story, you are really taking people from 2009 to 1966 and the visual designs should communicate that.”

Actually, you’re taking people from 2009 to a fictional mid-23rd Century. That’s what the visual designs should communicate, IMO.

“IMO, the individuals that like the new sets are really reacting to the money spent on them—and do not understand the need to use visual design to brand something as being “Trek”. ”

Speaking for myself, I simply do not *agree* that there is a “need” to use visual design for that purpose any more than has been done already (uniforms, for example). The notion that those who oppose your viewpoint “do not understand the need” suggests that it is a matter of fact, rather than what it really is—an opinion.

“If the story goes back to the core of Trek, the visuals should also go back to the core.”

When talking about the use of color on the ship, for example, you’re really talking about the desire on the part of network executives to best show off what was then still a quite new invention—color television! This was Roddenberry and the production team making compromises.

” It would have been a wonderful undertone for the film to remind people about how America used to see the future.”

Star Trek was, in many ways, the antithesis of the way America and the rest of the World saw its future—which was quite fearful, bleak, and even apocalyptic. It was the optimism in the notion that human beings would not destroy themselves, but instead survive and unite to eliminate the social ills of the 20th Century and explore deep space which challenged the prevailing feelings about the future (clear to anyone who recalls the bomb shelters and ridiculous “duck and cover” drills in school), not the pretty color schemes, etc.

551. Closettrekker - March 14, 2009

#549—“STWOK had excellent action but there was also a great deal of human drama and conflict in it AND that is what made it work (that is why it was probably the BEST of all ST movies)– that was STOS story telling at its BEST!!! If this movie does not have great story-telling (and I PRAY that it does) it will fail.”

I’m not sure it would fail financially, but I definitely would not then place it among the better Star Trek outings. I just do not see where some people tend to see addition (the return of good action in Trek) as automatically implying subtraction of something else. There is plenty of room for all of it.

The writers are fans of Star Trek (both written and filmed). They know that good character moments and intriguing stories are important to the formula of a good Star Trek production. I see no reason to believe that those elements will be absent.

I’m glad to know the weather is getting better in NY.

It’s been ugly here in Houston of late.

552. Holger - March 14, 2009

Closettrekker: “I agree with New Horizon and others who feel that, with an eye toward the future of Star Trek, simply sprucing up a 1960’s visual interpretation of the 23rd Century would be a mistake.”

That’s were I disagree. I think the original designs are timeless, and they are still futuristic – of course not unchanged: you’d have to upgrade the monitors, interfaces, build them from non-cardboard materials, etc. But the basic design is very sound, and IMO, much more plausible and much more elegant than the new design.
That’s not a question of canon here, just a question of design aesthetics.

It would have been easy, I believe, to respect canon, please longtime fans, and please the eyes of a younger generation – all in one package. That it wasn’t done I find very disappointing.

553. New Horizon - March 14, 2009

552. Holger – March 14, 2009
That’s were I disagree. I think the original designs are timeless, and they are still futuristic – of course not unchanged: you’d have to upgrade the monitors, interfaces, build them from non-cardboard materials, etc. But the basic design is very sound, and IMO, much more plausible and much more elegant than the new design.

This is where a lot of Trekkers simply can’t or do not wish to see what the outside world see when they look at Trek. The original designs are classic, but not timeless…and I also do not think the originals were made from cardboard. In any case, sprucing them up to the degree required for a major motion picture…if we’re talking about essentially using the same blueprints and using the finest quality materials and tech…well, it would still be a radically different bridge. Much like any bridge that has come after TOS, this bridge reflects all the basic stations of the bridge. What people keep getting hung up on is what the bridge and ship looked like 40 years ago on a T.V. show. That’s not necessarily how it really looked…that’s just how they were able to represent it on television at the time. The bridge could look any way we choose to imagine it…and so long as there stations for Kirk and the gang…the same stories could be retold on a completely different bridge.

I really don’t think it would have been as easy as you think to please everyone in one package. They’ve been trying for years and haven’t been able to score a home run.

If I, a life long Trekker, can put down the sword and open my mind to change…then anyone here can. You simply have to choose.

I choose to accept it. My loyalty to and enjoyment of Star Trek goes well beyond the design of the ship and bridge. It’s the characters and story that matter to me.

554. thorsten - March 14, 2009

A big part of designing the new bridge was the sense of reality.
So the crew is not staring at a huge monitor anymore in 2009,
a monitor that a lot of people have at home on the wall already.
The main viewer is a combination of window and display, and we get always the sense where the ship is, and what is going on.

555. Holger - March 14, 2009

553 New Horizon: “if we’re talking about essentially using the same blueprints and using the finest quality materials and tech…well, it would still be a radically different bridge.”

That’s basically what I had in mind, and, well, I wouldn’t call it radically different then, I’d call it an upgrade of the classic design, but with the core of the design remaining intact.

“I really don’t think it would have been as easy as you think to please everyone in one package. They’ve been trying for years and haven’t been able to score a home run.”

Sure, but it was never tried to do an upgrade of the TOS design. And there was no need to do that, we weren’t in the TOS era in any of the spin-off shows.
They were doing what has been done now, present a radically new and trendy design, and as you say, no home run was scored by this method.

I don’t know why a bridge sticking to the original blueprints but smoothened a bit and produced with state-of-the-art materials and technology would look outdated or boring.
I think it would look great, not just to nostalgic fans. And the new fans and casual viewers probably wouldn’t even notice that they’re looking at the Matt Jeffries design, they’d just notice a cool SF design.

Of course, this debate has been rendered somewhat academic :-)

556. Holger - March 14, 2009

553: I believe the TOS bridge was made mainly from light wood and from cardboard.

557. Scott B. here. - March 14, 2009

McCoy – Thanks for all your posts, and voicing your views against the apparent majority here. You save me a lot of typing. :-)

Your arguments are exactly the same I would make. My feeling is that the visuals are important, and sticking with the look of the original show (sure, sure, with reasonable updates, sure) alienates no one (except those who wouldn’t be caught dead at a Trek movie anyway), while it respects and delights those fans who cherish TOS’s design aesthetic. Truly a missed opportunity on the filmmaker’s part.

Scott B. out.

558. McCoy - March 14, 2009

557

:o) Thanks Scott B.

559. Jeff C - March 14, 2009

It is great to see both sides of the argument.
And though I might side more with McCoy, I have enjoyed the back and forth that both sides have made. I am seeing everyone’s viewpoint in a new light.

560. McCoy - March 15, 2009

Hey Jeff C.

You have some great analysis. Especially 450. You have friends in the film business? It would be interesting to hear more of their opinions about the designs.

561. Shatner_Fan_Prime - March 15, 2009

#557 … “McCoy – Thanks for all your posts, and voicing your views against the apparent majority here.”

My view is … what good are all those posts now? Two years ago, I was here passionately arguing that Shatner should be included in the new movie (something I still believe), but once it became clear that was not going to happen, I stopped discussing it. So what do those arguing against the new bridge design hope to achieve now? It’s too late, you’re only making yourself blue in the face. Nothing you say will change anything.

562. Dom - March 15, 2009

549. Sam Belil: ‘Of course STOS had some great action scenes and sequences, but it was never presented as an “Action show”’

Yes it was. Don’t let years of trek pseudo-intellectual geek ‘experts’ fool you. TOS was an action adventure sci-fi Western.

‘neither were the movies presented as “action movies”.’

Have you seen the trailers? They all emphasised the action scenes! TOS Trek has always been a sci-fi rollercoaster ride.

‘STWOK had excellent action but there was also a great deal of human drama and conflict in it AND that is what made it work (that is why it was probably the BEST of all ST movies)’

People went to see a kick-ass action movie with good characters! That’s normal. Don’t read more into Trek than is really there!

‘I just cant buy Uhura being on board at the time Kirk took over, remeber while not as young as Chekov, (at least to me) there were no indications of her being the same age as Kirk.’

There’s nothing to indicate she is particularly! Kirk goes to the Academy later than her. Also, while Jim Kirk is obviously born more or less on the same day, we don’t know that ST09’s Uhura and Chekov were conceived at the same time as the original characters. They could be created from different sperms and eggs, meaning they are as alike as one person is to his brother!

‘I would have liked to see Number One and Dr. Boyce get some acknowledgement in this movie, just for continuity sake’

If they ever served with Chris Pike at all, it wasn’t on the Enterprise.

‘and for that matter Gary Mitchell.’

Kirk won’t have been at the academy at the same time as Gary Mitchell. Chances are he never meets Carol Marcus either!

It seems the basic concepts of the original Star Trek TV show, along with bits of the pilots, are being used as the basis of this film, without dragging in excessive continuity from the other movies or the TV spinoffs.

563. AJ - March 15, 2009

562/Dom:

You are right re: the action orientation of TOS. If you look at the “Gene Roddenberry Introduction” version of “The Cage,” he freely admits that the action-adventure format was demanded by the networks at the time, and that he had to utilize the format as best he could to get his message across. It was marketed as a “Space Western,” and had physical fights aplenty.

It was TNG and beyond that eschewed fisticuffs for phaser battles, space battles and the like. Can you imagine Jean-Luc Picard in a fist-fight? Can you say “C3PO?” Goodness gracious me!

564. Mr. Bob Dobalina - March 15, 2009

#550 “Star Trek was, in many ways, the antithesis of the way America and the rest of the World saw its future—which was quite fearful, bleak, and even apocalyptic. It was the optimism in the notion that human beings would not destroy themselves, but instead survive and unite to eliminate the social ills of the 20th Century and explore deep space which challenged the prevailing feelings about the future (clear to anyone who recalls the bomb shelters and ridiculous “duck and cover” drills in school), not the pretty color schemes, etc.”

I’m not sure why you’re dropping Star Trek into the cold war of the 1950’s, but in the mid-60’s America had a very optimistic attitude towards the future when it came to the space program and the race to land on the moon. All that post-apocolyptic mess came about in the 70’s with the likes of Soylent Green and of course the Mad Max movies.

And 538, pock speared….well said! …after all, it was my intention, that the people are intending.

565. Scott B. here. - March 15, 2009

Re: 558 – McCoy – You’re certainly welcome. I just wanted you to know that there were a few of us out here feeling the same things.

Re: 561 – Shatner-Fan-Prime – Any constructive, well-crafted opinions counter to “the way things are” can have a positive impact on the future. It’s clear that the sterile sets and bland uniform colors of TMP were replaced by a bolder palette and more interesting visuals in TWOK in no small part because of fan grumbling.

Besides, if this movie does relegate all past incarnations of Trek to a parallel universe/timestream, then it’s very possible for Shatner to appear in a sequel, what with the new, unexplored timestream opened up by this film. (If I have this wrong, please don’t yell at me. I’ve avoided detailed plot discussions as much as possible, and have not watched the last two trailers for fear of spoilers). I wouldn’t hold my breath for a Shatner appearance, though.

Scott B. out.

566. GaryS - March 15, 2009

Lets wait and see on Carol Marcus,
She might show up in the sequel.

567. Mr. curtis - March 16, 2009

“we wanted similar spatial relationships and the rail that wraps around the central core of that area, without slavishly duplicating the color palettes. We wanted to update the technology in such a way that was super cool without being cheeseball.”

its not being slavish, its showing respect to the original design.

ive got news for you ..its cheeseball, major cheeseball.

568. Christine - March 16, 2009

#562; DOM :: “….Have you seen the trailers? They all emphasised the action scenes! …..”

Um, maybe with the exception of the TMP trailer? ^^; I’m sorry, that was not a very good trailer. Not a half-terrible movie, but… the trailer…

Heh.

569. Closettrekker - March 17, 2009

#564—“I’m not sure why you’re dropping Star Trek into the cold war of the 1950’s, but in the mid-60’s America had a very optimistic attitude towards the future when it came to the space program and the race to land on the moon. ”

The height of Cold War brinkmanship was not in the 1950’s. In fact, Americans were not even vulnerable to nuclear attack until the Soviets placed missiles so equipped in Cuba—-that was the 60’s. Star Trek’s debut was only about 4 years removed from that.

570. Closettrekker - March 17, 2009

#563—” Can you imagine Jean-Luc Picard in a fist-fight? Can you say “C3PO?” Goodness gracious me!”

Lol!

571. kmart - March 17, 2009

569

The space race was entirely based on cold war politics. Even the most casual study of history makes it clear this was not a scientific endeavour, and if it had been, it wouldn’t have happened, certainly not with manned ships.

572. Closettrekker - March 18, 2009

#571—I’m guessing you intended that as a response to #564, not #569.

You are correct. The “Space Race” was entirely a product of The Cold War. There was great fear among the American power moguls in the House and Senate during the Eisenhower Adminstration as a result of the Sputnik launch—fear that the Soviets would use satellites as military platforms from which to strike Western targets.

Sutnik made the race to prove American superiority in The Space Race not only a Cold War public relations imperative, but to staunch anti-communists like (then-Senator) Lyndon Johnson, it was seen as a legitimate defense initiative.

The notion that “optimism” actually had anything to do with it is completely absurd.

573. kmart - March 18, 2009

572, Sorry ’bout that, you’re right. I totally zoned on who I was aiming that at, thanks for correcting me.

574. McCoy - March 18, 2009

I’m going to have to disagree with 571 and 572 a bit. The blanket statement that the space race was all about the cold war is inaccurate.

To military strategists and some government officials, it was about the cold war, yes.

To scientists is was about history and geography. It was about developing technology to study another world and then later applying that technology to other endeavors. CAT scans and MRI technology;

For entrepreneurs. the space race was about taking what we learned from the trip and creating products. Tang; scratch-resistant lenses; freeze dried food; smaller computers; and many other modern conveniences we now perhaps take for granted.

Finally, and most importantly, to millions of children and many of their parents, the space race was about human exploration and achieving something that mankind has dreamt of for thousands of years. Landing a man on the moon and returning him home safely was about the spirit of America. Reaching for the stars—and getting it. Using the best and brightest to travel higher and farther than any humans had before.

You know, boldly going where no man has gone before. Ultimately, the space race, like Star Trek, was more than the sum of it’s parts. It was more than the core idea.

575. kmart - March 18, 2009

574
you’re talking about offshoots, not primary reasons. Literally, apples and oranges. I’m not disputing the offshot gains. But if those were the primary reasons … we’d still never have been up there.

Best evidence of that … we haven’t been back, and we haven’t gone anywhere else. 2001 looks like 3001 compared with our 2009. Geezus, major matt mason looks like the 23rd century next to our 2009.

576. McCoy - March 18, 2009

The deaths of JFK, Martin Luther King’ Jr. and of RFK mixed with race issues and Viet Nam didn’t help. Things were happing at home by the time we actually made it to the moon. But it was the optimism of the late 50’s and early 60’s that generated the momentum.

577. Closettrekker - March 19, 2009

#574—“To military strategists and some government officials, it was about the cold war, yes.”

You mean the men who actually appropriated the funds and allowed it to happen?

The achievments of the space race may have been the cause for optimism, but that is quite different from suggesting that optimism was the cause for the space race.

578. McCoy - March 19, 2009

Never said optimism was the cause of the space race. But since you like to focus on details: I present you with you with your quote from 571:

“The “Space Race” was entirely a product of The Cold War….”

No. The space race was not entirely a product of the cold war. There were many reasons to go to the moon and all were achieved.

579. kmart - March 19, 2009

578

What you call reasons, the people making the decisions call side benefits or corollaries. Geez, Kennedy was ready to call off the space race practically before it got started if it would have cooled things down, and that alone proves it was a bargaining chip, a pricey one, but a bargaining chip nonetheless.

580. Closettrekker - March 20, 2009

#578—“Never said optimism was the cause of the space race. ”

No—Bob Dobalina did. That is what prompted this discussion in the first place.

“The space race was not entirely a product of the cold war.”

Of course it was. Without the *fear* produced in the United States government by the Sputnik launch in 1957, it never would have happened. Man would probably have still ventured into space, but not within the timetable we know as history. There would have been no “race” at all.

Without The Cold War, who would have been the participants in the “race”, and why call it a “race”?

It is utterly naive and ignorant of history to suggest that it was anything but a product of Cold War politics and posturing.

It was *fear*–not optimism–which inspired “The Space Race”.

Optimism was an effect of some of the achievments of the Space Race, but never in any way its cause.

The very term “Space Race” is indicative enough of that.

581. Star Fleet Base » Blog Archive » Interview With Production Designer Scott Chambliss - March 21, 2009

[…] Much more from Chambliss on designing the new movie can be found at TrekMovie. […]

582. Mike - September 23, 2009

I enjoyed the film and want to see more but I thought the art director on this movie totally dropped the ball.

I don’t mind changing things to modernize but was that a refinery they filmed in for the lower decks? I remember thinking several times during the film “the Federation sure has seen better times”. I think Mr. Chambliss cut too many corners and used WAY too much “found” art. The problem with filming sci-fi has always been coming up with things no one has seen before. This man didn’t. He took the easy way and it glared.

I’m not really sure I understand everyone’s definition of cheesy. I think the old bridge looked great both conceptually and in execution. Yes, I think the technology would’ve been Next Gen touch screens by then but the new bridge has so much going on it’s almost impossible to take it in. From a designer’s (I am) point of view, information overload is something to be avoided. It’s dangerous when you have a job to do. Why wouldn’t the Federation designers try to reduce the distractions to the crew?

I just don’t like change for change sake. If it improves, then good. If it does nothing for you, then it doesn’t need to change.

I enjoyed everything about this film but the art design.

TrekMovie.com is represented by Gorilla Nation. Please contact Gorilla Nation for ad rates, packages and general advertising information.