[Scribbler]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

You can't have a bridge in a starship from the 23rd century that looks more advanced than a 24th centruy starship bridge. It just doesn't work. And I seriously doubt that the appearance of one time traveling Romulan could cause such a dramatic change in the design of bridges of starships.

Okay. Rant over. Fire away!!!

Now I feel better..the world is normal again! Fair play Zim, I don't want to shoot you down. Maybe instead of trapping the franchise design in a timewarp forever, how about if we redesign the 24th century stuff to look even more advanced and then we'd have the gap your talking about? My view is that this design actually follows your art brief quite well apart from the extra stations, there's quite a lot of nods to the original design there (the platform under the chair and helm, the colours, the retro chairs, the railings, I could go on). The overall thing was always going to look more "advanced" than the sixties one, and given the fact of how old STNG is, it's hard to see how it wasn't going to trump that one too....

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Im not sure myself - just thought that most actual battles get fought at sub-warp speeds. So the viewer side of that wouldn't make a difference visually.

That's right, real battles with maneuvering etc. happen at impulse. But the new warp effect also excludes seeing other ships who fly at warp and there were a lot of such shots in TNG and post-TNG Trek.

[kevin]

Maybe the screen can be adjusted to view specific things onscreen etc.

[jtrek79]

the bridge is ok by me.....the only missing piece of the puzzle is the water pipe's area , will someone be so kind to explain that to us?

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Maybe the screen can be adjusted to view specific things onscreen etc.

That's very well possible, but I was more referring to exterior shots featuring several ships at warp. It just seems to me that the old, less intensive warp blur has more advantages than the new one. You can't do a shot at a window now anymore, the new warp blur is just too intense for a background.

[kevin]

Well in TNG you couldn't see a ship at warp unless it was focused on by the viewers. So perhaps you would still see the blue effect, but with a ship within it or something.

As for windows - maybe it would look different from 'the side view' so to speak. Or maybe the blue rush is just the acceleration (like from TNG's 'The Child', before it becomes regular stars)

Just guessing, but maybe we'll see something in the movie to explain how it may look.

[gornski]

Originally Posted by I-Am-Zim

They'd better have one damn-spankin' good explanation for why the bridge looks like that!

Originally Posted by NCC-73515

Better than a 23rd century bridge that looks like a 20th century film set.

Bang. NCC nailed it, Zim. Audiences aren't stupid. They can see that the TOS or TNG bridge was designed within the constraints of the time and budget of those productions. They can see it plain as day. If the producers of this film gave in to nostalgia, here is what would happen: Almost every new fan who came to see this movie would have a "WTF?" moment every time they looked at the bridge. Which this film cannot afford. If you want the kind of worldwide audience that this film is clearly aiming for, you cannot allow the attention of the new audience members to wander from your plot.

I know I sound harsh by using the word "nostalgia", Zim. I hope you understand the respect I have for fans of all kinds. But, Damnit Zim, Trek is not about the past.

[horatio]

Originally Posted by kevin

Well in TNG you couldn't see a ship at warp unless it was focused on by the viewers. So perhaps you would still see the blue effect, but with a ship within it or something.

As for windows - maybe it would look different from 'the side view' so to speak. Or maybe the blue rush is just the acceleration (like from TNG's 'The Child', before it becomes regular stars)

Just guessing, but maybe we'll see something in the movie to explain how it may look.

I did not intend to sound definite, it is mere speculation right now. Could also be that this new effect is just a prolonged acceleration phase and ends once you reach a constant 'velocity'.
Even if not, the shots I mentioned which cannot be done now anymore are far from being not substitutable and have also been more prominent in past TV Trek (I don't remember that such a shot was in a movie).

[gornski]

As far as my 2 cents about the bridge design go, I will have to see it in the theater to decide. The bridge is a dynamic set, where most of the important drama unfolds. I just can't judge it without seeing peoples moving around and interacting on it.

FWIW, I don't like too many point light sources, which this bridge appears to have. The eye, and the mind's visual processing center, has a hard time tracking and keeping focused in a visual environment like that.

[NCC-73515]

Originally Posted by gornski

If the producers of this film gave in to nostalgia, here is what would happen: Almost every new fan who came to see this movie would have a "WTF?" moment every time they looked at the bridge. Which this film cannot afford.

For those who want nostalgia, watch Phase II