Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Huston Huddleston Wants You To Help Save the Star Trek TNG Set

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the ok-this-demands-a-video-visit dept.

Education 131

New submitter ShadoCat points out this interesting project to restore the set of Star Trek: The Next Generation, writing: "This isn't the original set unfortunately (which was destroyed making the ST:Generations movie). This is one that Paramount created for display in 1991. Huston Huddleston saved the pieces of the set late 2011 when they were about to be trashed by Paramount. Huddleston and crew will be refitting the set with working displays and controls. They plan to host parties and educational events in the set which, apparently, is big enough to hold a large number of students. For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 24th century)."

cancel ×

131 comments

Space the final frontier? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41721973)

I don't understand why Paramount do this from time to time, other than to make room for the new stuff. Why don't they just chuck everything in the holodeck?

Re:Space the final frontier? (0)

davester666 (731373) | about 2 years ago | (#41722557)

What do they mean by "working displays and controls"?

I am quite sure we don't have things like warp drives, phasers, photon torpedoes and the like just hanging around to be 'controlled'...

Re:Space the final frontier? (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41723021)

They didn't say that the displays and controls would actually control real devices, just that the displays and controls would themselves work.

I'm pretty sure that back in the 80s when they filmed ST:TNG, none of the displays and controls actually did anything: they didn't make beeping noises, there were no actual displays, etc. All that stuff was added in post-production. The actors were just pushing on the LCARS panels at random, with nothing happening when they did. When Data read pages of text at ridiculous speed, I could be wrong but that might not have even been there, he might have been looking at a blank panel, with the cool graphics added in later.

It sounds like these guys want to refit the sets so there's actual monitors in the displays, displaying information that looks like it's from the show, and the control panels so that they're actual working touch panels where you can press the "buttons" and get beeps and maybe some realistic-looking information on the built-in displays when you do. If so, that's a pretty ambitious project, but it's quite doable with today's technology. The biggest challenge would be making the touch panels I think.

Re:Space the final frontier? (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 2 years ago | (#41724627)

The biggest challenge would be making the touch panels I think.

I'm trying to think if any panels which weren't wall mounted were significantly larger than an iPad. Out local shopping mall has touch screen directories which are bigger than our 120" TV. I don't think getting large format touchscreens will be that much of an issue if they can pay for them.

Re:Space the final frontier? (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41724711)

Not necessarily: the form factors are odd. I'm thinking especially of the helm and nav stations at the front of the bridge: they're long and narrow. You can't take a touchscreen and saw it in half; it has to be manufactured in its final shape. So they have to find something that's already made in the right size. Maybe they could get 2 or 3 screens to fit together.

However, they don't have to use touchscreen LCD displays for these things; they can just have the regular backlit static controls, and overlay them with a glass touch panel (and maybe embed some smaller LCDs in there). There are companies that can manufacture custom-size capacitive touch panels; they're pretty simple, just glass panels with ultra-thin wires sandwiched between them in a grid.

Re:Space the final frontier? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41725299)

There were actual (CRT) monitors in some of the displays - you can see it in a number of episodes.

I forget which, but in one particular episode we see - on an engineering wall-mounted console - a momentary overlap of the tape leader (contents of the tape, run length, format, and so on) of the kind seen on professional grade broadcast material. I see a number of these at work (I work in broadcast TV) so they're quite familiar to me.

Many of the LCARS displays were simply backlit gels that the actors would interact with by simply touching the lit parts. Naturally the beeping sounds were added in post-production.

Re:Space the final frontier? (4, Informative)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#41722617)

I don't understand why Paramount do this from time to time, other than to make room for the new stuff. Why don't they just chuck everything in the holodeck?

Because the Holodeck isn't infinite in size - it's an ordinary room (you can see the actual size when people enter it before it's turned on). The unlimited size with the ability to walk endlessly in any direction is an illusion generated by force fields (i.e. virtual treadmills). If they kept throwing junked movie sets in there, it would eventually fill up just like any storage room.

Re:Space the final frontier? (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41722843)

Hah, I bet that the computer can transparently transport any inanimate stuff into Cargo Bay 3 and replace it with a holographic copy until time arises that someone needs to fetch it back.

Re:Space the final frontier? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#41724601)

Why go through all that extra energy to simulate a huge cargo bay when the real cargo bay has to be within transporter range anyways?

That would not make sense on a ship, but on a planet it just might. Planets apparently have large scale transporter networks and relays. I would imagine you could have huge underground storage areas full of materials and items and use a holodeck as an interactive catalogue.

Keep in mind though, there are some things that even transporters cannot handle.

Re:Space the final frontier? (1)

garyoa1 (2067072) | about 2 years ago | (#41724219)

On the other hand, if they were smart they would have created the whole set in the holodeck to begin with. Then they wouldn't have the problem of where to shove all this crap.

Re:Space the final frontier? (1)

countach (534280) | about 2 years ago | (#41725199)

Exactly. The real solution is to destroy the set, and fire up the replicator when you want it back.

Re:Space the final frontier? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 2 years ago | (#41726127)

Exactly. The real solution is to destroy the set, and fire up the 3D printer when you want it back.

FTFY.

Re:Space the final frontier? (2)

contrapunctus (907549) | about 2 years ago | (#41723139)

(Morbo voice): holodecks do not work that way!

(I would have put it in all caps but slashdot didn't let me).

Is it mounted on gimbals? (3, Funny)

Smallpond (221300) | about 2 years ago | (#41721993)

I hope whenever it is hit by a blast from enemy weapons everybody can fall over to the left and then to the right.

Is it explosive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722113)

You left out exploding panels.

Re:Is it mounted on gimbals? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722131)

I hope whenever it is hit by a blast from enemy weapons everybody can fall over to the left and then to the right.

Uh, enemy weapons? Who the hell is hosting the parties you're attending? I'm guessing a descendant of Hatfield or McCoy.

Re:Is it mounted on gimbals? (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 years ago | (#41722825)

I hope whenever it is hit by a blast from enemy weapons everybody can fall over to the left and then to the right.

Uh, enemy weapons? Who the hell is hosting the parties you're attending? I'm guessing a descendant of Hatfield or McCoy.

It isn't clear on whether Dr. McCoy has any descendents [wikipedia.org] . It depends on which series.

Re:Is it mounted on gimbals? (1)

pugugly (152978) | about 2 years ago | (#41723347)

If Bob April made it into Canon, by God Joanna should - {G}.

Re:Is it mounted on gimbals? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722965)

Uh, enemy weapons? Who the hell is hosting the parties you're attending?

Pretty standard at parties in Oakland or LA.

TV (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#41722049)

The greatest joke of the fundraiser video was the phrase "and soon even television". I can't stand the marketing gibberish. I don't think it is of any relevance to rebuilt a Star Trek bridge set. Paramount could do that. they have done it several times and they could do it again. I would prefer to build a real star ship as an educational facility [c-base.org] , try out a new design.

Build the Enterprise (2)

Shakrai (717556) | about 2 years ago | (#41722297)

Why limit it to an educational facility? These guys have a plan to make a functional spacecraft [buildtheenterprise.org] out of the basic design, with technology that's available today, albeit never used on this scale before. It's quite the interesting read, and I believe it's been mentioned on /. before.

Re:Build the Enterprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41724783)

warning: links to obnoxious content

Re:TV (1)

lessthan (977374) | about 2 years ago | (#41722771)

I agree with you. The ST:NG is filmed, the "ship" destroyed in-universe. What possible need would saving the set fill? I totally get if a collector wanted it or pieces of it, but then the collector should pay for it.

Re:TV (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about 2 years ago | (#41724853)

It seems Star Trek seems to be suffering from the whole Jerk Jerk A, affect, the bullshit reboot of Star Trek. Most people just don't give a crap about it any more. Gees, the killed one Vulcan 'Spock' in "Wrath of Kahn" and people went nuts demanding that Spock be brought back. Jerk Jerk blew up the whole planet Vulcan and nobody cared, youch, regardless of the millions spent of B$ public relations and marketing, that spelt failure for the attempt.

My mom's basement has room for this set. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722085)

I'm sure my mom wouldn't mind hosting a bunch of t-shirted geeks in her basement. Just have to make sure everyone brings their own soda and snacks.

I will take Deanna Troi's clothing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722111)

particularly her bra collection...

Re:I will take Deanna Troi's clothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722137)

I suppose you'd also like Data's "attachments" as well?

Re:I will take Deanna Troi's clothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722849)

Nah, mountains conquered by betazoids, humans, and klingons won't have much play left in them.

Re:I will take Deanna Troi's clothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41724175)

particularly her bra collection...

I knew a guy who bid on that but when he turned up to collect got her mother's wedding outfit instead.

Re:I will take Deanna Troi's clothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41725315)

Betazoids get married in the nick, so he bid on her bra and got nothing? I see what you did there!

Re:I will take Deanna Troi's clothing (1)

caseih (160668) | about 2 years ago | (#41725729)

Seriously doubt there were any. Double-sided sticky tape seems to be a staple of Star Trek actress costumes going back to the original series.

SF museum in Seattle not an option. (1)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41722153)

The Science Fiction Museum in Seattle seemed a likely place for this to end up, but that, like most Paul Allen projects, went bust. It closed in 2011. There's no really good place to put this.

Re:SF museum in Seattle not an option??? (3, Informative)

drainbramage (588291) | about 2 years ago | (#41722303)

This Science Fiction Museum in Seattle is still open: http://www.empsfm.org/at-the-museum/current-exhibits/icons-of-science-fiction.aspx# [empsfm.org]
It is part of the EMP and tickets are $20 or less.
Display pieces include items such as an Imperial Dalek from Doctor Who, the command chair from the classic television series Star Trek, and Neo’s coat from The Matrix Reloaded.
If you know where the Science Fiction Museum in Seattle was, that you say went bust, this Science Fiction Museum in Seattle will be easy to find.

Re:SF museum in Seattle not an option??? (2)

Animats (122034) | about 2 years ago | (#41722411)

This Science Fiction Museum in Seattle is still open:

It's just a temporary exhibit [flickr.com] (pictures) at what's really a rock music museum now. The permanent science fiction museum [wikipedia.org] closed in 2011.

Re:SF museum in Seattle not an option??? (1)

PTBarnum (233319) | about 2 years ago | (#41725061)

I think that the curators of the various SF exhibits would be very surprised to learn that the SF museum had closed. It has always shared space and staff with the music side of the museum, so the shift you are talking about is primarily a marketing change. Rather than continue to physically segregate the SF displays and music displays and charge separate admissions, they decided to combine them.

I enjoyed the old permanent SF gallery, but it had not changed substantially in a decade. It was time to overhaul it.

Re:SF museum in Seattle not an option??? (1)

dlgeek (1065796) | about 2 years ago | (#41726055)

Sorry, but having seen the former permenant collection, I was incredibly disappointed at the temporary "Icons" exhibit. It's nowhere close to the original in scale or impact. It takes up only about a quarter of the space the other one did (when I was there, the part that used to have robots had a horror exhbit and they redid the wall so you can't even get to the part with the cool weapons and all the old pulp mags, let alone where the death star used to be). It's also way less dense, and has almost none of the literature scattered around that the old one used to.

Re:SF museum in Seattle not an option. (1)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#41722441)

I live in Seattle and this is the first i heard of the SF museum, no wonder it went bust.

Some modest proposals (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722167)

1) Use private space launches to put everything in LEO storage.

2) Scan everything and 3D print it out when needed.

TNG set destroyed (3, Interesting)

religious freak (1005821) | about 2 years ago | (#41722193)

I guess the original TNG set was *intentionally* destroyed by Paramount in the making of Generations? I actually didn't know that. Here's a little paragraph explaining. If anyone has a bit more info, let me know.

http://movies.trekcore.com/generations/behindthescenes.html [trekcore.com] (see "Brent Spiner also comments on filming the saucer crash scene:" section)

I'm actually surprised a set would be usable as a destroyed starship set. You'd think the cheap, fake plastic parts would be obvious on screen?

Re:TNG set destroyed (1)

Torin Darkflight (851576) | about 2 years ago | (#41722449)

I would presume the set designers did additional work to hide the false nature of the set pieces after trashing them for the crash scene. I also imagine the dim lighting used during the filming of the final scene further helped obscure any obvious fakeness (Is that even a word?).

Re:TNG set destroyed (1)

PNutts (199112) | about 2 years ago | (#41722895)

I would presume the set designers did additional work to hide the false nature of the set pieces after trashing them for the crash scene.

Same reason my Christimas tree is decorated on only one side.

Re:TNG set destroyed (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41723075)

Is that the same scene where the top window over the bridge shattered?

What happened to transparent aluminum? Did they forget that technology in the 24th century too?

Which set was in the Hollywood Museum? (1)

angryargus (559948) | about 2 years ago | (#41722679)

The Hollywood Entertainment Museum had a ST:TNG set (and Cheers bar) so I'm left wondering which set that was unless it was reconstructed from the destroyed remnants.

Re:Which set was in the Hollywood Museum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722889)

The Hollywood Entertainment Museum had a ST:TNG set (and Cheers bar) so I'm left wondering which set that was unless it was reconstructed from the destroyed remnants.

Does anybody know what happend to these two exhibits after the museum closed down?

Re:Which set was in the Hollywood Museum? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722933)

A video of the set [youtube.com]

so sad they blew up the original set :( (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about 2 years ago | (#41722229)

I wubs TNG.

Space Junk (0)

Riddler Sensei (979333) | about 2 years ago | (#41722255)

They seem to have their work cut out for them. Looking at the gallery it really just looks like a bunch of junk in someone's garage. But I guess if you put everything in back in the right place and give it a nice coat...

Working Enterprise??? (4, Funny)

uvajed_ekil (914487) | about 2 years ago | (#41722453)

Huddleston and crew will be refitting the set with working displays and controls.

Working controls? If the helm and weapons controls actually function as intended I'll buy the whole set!

Re:Working Enterprise??? (4, Funny)

Megahard (1053072) | about 2 years ago | (#41722685)

True story, my sister, who is much more a trekkie than me, took her little girl to a convention. The little one got all excited on seeing a phaser on display, then was greatly disappointed after picking it up and discovering that it was not operational.

Re:Working Enterprise??? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41722837)

I imagine her mom was quite relieved, though.

Stupid waste of time and space (0)

Nyder (754090) | about 2 years ago | (#41722461)

Ya, you got some fans who can't get out of the past, need to relieve their younger years in old TV sets.

Star Trek TNG is meh. At best. I liked the show back when, I like Star Trek, and I tried to watch TNG again recently, and it sucks. The acting is shitty, the sets look crappy, and the stories are stupid. Reminds me of Blake's 7. I loved the show back in the 80's, but once i saw it again, i saw how bad the acting was in it, and it was bad, and it ruined the show for me.

It's not even the original set. Anyone can make a Star Trek TNG set and put it somewhere and think it's cool.

I like to save stuff, and I end up throwing most of it out later because what was cool at one time, become junk later.

Re:Stupid waste of time and space (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722725)

You are a moron.

Re:Stupid waste of time and space (3, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41723177)

TNG was a great show. It wasn't perfect, it wasn't hyper-gritty and dark like everything these days seems to try to be, and it sure as hell wasn't realistic in its depiction of humans (somehow in the 24th century, humans are all extremely competent and not very prone to Jerry Springer-esque drama and idiocy), but it was great fun to watch, and the acting was good for an 80s TV show, though admittedly the first season was a little rough with some of the actors. The stories were excellent for the most part, with a few exceptions as you'd expect on a show that ran for 7 seasons. I just went back and rewatched much of the series over the last few months and enjoyed it thoroughly. I do have to admit though that I tended to avoid episodes which were 1) in the first season, 2) included Wesley as a major character (again, mostly season 1), 3) involved Lwaxana Troi, or 4) involved Q. This isn't to say all these episodes were bad though; the S1 episode "Conspiracy" for instance was one of the best episodes in the whole series.

I do have to admit, however, that probably my favorite thing about TNG is its depiction of humans. It's completely unrealistic, because it shows humans as we (or at least some of us) wish they were: competent, intelligent, considerate, thoughtful, just, and not corrupt. It shows a society I wish I could live in, but which doesn't exist, and probably never will due to human nature. But that makes it good escapist entertainment. Many times, I don't really want to watch a show/movie that shows humans as they really are. If I wanted to do that, I could watch Jerry Springer or Maury Povitch; you can see stupid humans in their full glory there. I see enough of that crap in real life; why would I want to watch more of it on TV?

Stupid waste of aliens and humans. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41723735)

The reason you didn't see "humans" like that is because the "aliens" were our stand-ins. They were everything we weren't (as far as bad side).

Re:Stupid waste of aliens and humans. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41725343)

Are you an angry little man? Time to give it up! You won't make others angry, you'll just frustrate yourself more. The more frustrated you get, the more likely you are to do or say something that nobody else will care about.

Re:Stupid waste of time and space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41725339)

TNG was a great show. It wasn't perfect, it wasn't hyper-gritty and dark like everything these days seems to try to be, and it sure as hell wasn't realistic in its depiction of humans (somehow in the 24th century, humans are all extremely competent and not very prone to Jerry Springer-esque drama and idiocy), but it was great fun to watch, and the acting was good for an 80s TV show, though admittedly the first season was a little rough with some of the actors. The stories were excellent for the most part, with a few exceptions as you'd expect on a show that ran for 7 seasons. I just went back and rewatched much of the series over the last few months and enjoyed it thoroughly. I do have to admit though that I tended to avoid episodes which were 1) in the first season, 2) included Wesley as a major character (again, mostly season 1), 3) involved Lwaxana Troi, or 4) involved Q. This isn't to say all these episodes were bad though; the S1 episode "Conspiracy" for instance was one of the best episodes in the whole series.

I do have to admit, however, that probably my favorite thing about TNG is its depiction of humans. It's completely unrealistic, because it shows humans as we (or at least some of us) wish they were: competent, intelligent, considerate, thoughtful, just, and not corrupt. It shows a society I wish I could live in, but which doesn't exist, and probably never will due to human nature. But that makes it good escapist entertainment. Many times, I don't really want to watch a show/movie that shows humans as they really are. If I wanted to do that, I could watch Jerry Springer or Maury Povitch; you can see stupid humans in their full glory there. I see enough of that crap in real life; why would I want to watch more of it on TV?

That's because it was a Utopian Society ( Look it up ).

W

Re:Stupid waste of time and space (1)

humanrev (2606607) | about 2 years ago | (#41726217)

You avoided episodes with Q? Those were often the best ones!

Re:Stupid waste of time and space (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41726259)

They were kind of annoying. I mean really; a race of beings who are really gods (they're omnipotent and claim to be omniscient, that fits the definition), but they're not really omniscient since they can be out-argued by a human? The whole thing just didn't make much sense.

Re:Stupid waste of time and space (2)

Y-Crate (540566) | about 2 years ago | (#41724657)

I like Star Trek, and I tried to watch TNG again recently, and it sucks. The acting is shitty, the sets look crappy, and the stories are stupid.

Try DS9. MUCH better sets, better lighting, better stories and better ac... just watch it.

Re:Stupid waste of time and space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41725451)

I thought it was the opposite in all respects. The sets all looked like sets, the lighting looked like TV set lighting, the stories were dull, and the acting was .. well, it was the best part of the show.

"First time accepted submitter" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722467)

"First time accepted submitter"

Please, I beg you, in the name of science, stop adding that.
NO ONE CARES. The submitter doesn't care, we don't care, nobody cares.
Stop writing that.
PLEASE.

24th Century (4, Funny)

TrekkieGod (627867) | about 2 years ago | (#41722537)

For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

TNG's period was the 24th century, not the 25th.

Nerds these days, missing the most basic of knowledge. Back in my days, we could tell you the stardates of different episodes from memory and wore an onion on our belts, because that was the style at the time.

Re:24th Century (2)

pangu (322010) | about 2 years ago | (#41723131)

For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

TNG's period was the 24th century, not the 25th.

Nerds these days, missing the most basic of knowledge. Back in my days, we could tell you the stardates of different episodes from memory and wore an onion on our belts, because that was the style at the time.

I wore Orion on my belt, which will be the style at the time.

Re:24th Century (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 2 years ago | (#41724777)

I wore Orion on my belt, which will be the style at the time.

That makes you a cat and means we should ignore you just on general principles.

Re:24th Century (1)

Surak_Prime (160061) | about 2 years ago | (#41723675)

It would seem to be both, actually, since the time period that Star Trek Online takes place in is still regarded at TNG era, and that starts in 2409. Nerds these days, indeed. :arches eyebrow:

Re:24th Century (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41723703)

> TNG's period was the 24th century, not the 25th.

About 2360, IIRC... so that would be the "24th-and-a-half century." :)

Re:24th Century (1)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 2 years ago | (#41724955)

I wonder if there was life on Mars [wikipedia.org] during that period.

Re:24th Century (1)

neoshroom (324937) | about 2 years ago | (#41723777)

For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

Seat belts are actually re-introduced to star ships later in the 24th century on Riker's Starship Titan.

Re:24th Century (1)

sarysa (1089739) | about 2 years ago | (#41725803)

For safety though, I hope they add circuit breakers (a technology along with seat belts that seems to have been lost in the 25th century)."

Seat belts are actually re-introduced to star ships later in the 24th century on Riker's Starship Titan.

Which are kind of ridiculous (and a bit of a hinderance) seeing how most starships have a quasi-military role. Actual military rarely uses seat belts (unless mobility is already heavily restricted, i.e. fighter pilot) because they need to be able to jump into action and the seat belt is a liability. (and I don't know about you, but every vehicle I've had, the seat belt would lock at annoying random times)

Nerd religion. Bah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722641)

Its a TV show. They are props. Recycle them.

Make It So (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41722797)

Number One.

What is the point, really? (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41722851)

Although I'm a Star Trek fan, I wouldn't feel a compelling interest in saving even the original set - but a replica built for display? Really, what's the point in that?

Re:What is the point, really? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41723207)

I don't know how economically viable the idea is, but it's a good idea because it'd be a fun thing to visit. I went to the "Star Trek: The Experience" (or whatever it was called) exhibit at Hilton in Las Vegas before they closed that up, and it was a pretty amazing experience. One part that really stood out to me was when we were taken through a door onto the Enterprise-D bridge. It's a pretty amazing experience to actually stand on the bridge (even if it's in the back with all the other dumb tourists), a place we've seen countless times in the show, and it actually looks like a real place. I'd pay money to go do that again, especially if I got a little more time to walk around it, sit in the captain's chair, sit at the helm and play with the controls, etc. It'd be a lot of fun.

Re:What is the point, really? (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 2 years ago | (#41724323)

If you RTFA, you would see that this is the exact set this guy is trying to save.. it's the one from Vegas. When they shut the ride down in 2010, they threw it all out, and this guy saved it.

Re:What is the point, really? (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41724455)

It's Kramer and the Merv Griffin Show set all over again!

Re:What is the point, really? (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41725645)

The problem is that this set is a rather poor reproduction of the original set. Much of that is intentional, as they built the thing for a different purpose than filming a TV series. Heck, even the doors aren't the right shape...

It makes me wonder if it wouldn't make more sense to just rebuild the thing from scratch.

For all intents and purposes, it is the same (1)

brunes69 (86786) | about 2 years ago | (#41724305)

The "replica set" that Paramount created for the Las Vegas show was an exact 1:1 duplicate of the original, even down to the too-small-for-the-camera inside jokes printed on the LCARS screens. I was on this set about 1 year before it was taken down (got my picture taken in the captain's chair!) It was quite large and you could walk around the whole thing, and everything was very accurate from what I could tell.

Re:For all intents and purposes, it is the same (1)

Xtifr (1323) | about 2 years ago | (#41724973)

Then let's get photographic evidence and blueprints and stuff so that new accurate recreations can be made. I'm not seeing anything particularly interesting about this recreation except in how it serves to document these details. Which can be recorded independently of the fake set.

Re:For all intents and purposes, it is the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41725417)

What were the inside jokes?
 

Re:For all intents and purposes, it is the same (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41725713)

The replica set was very far from an exact 1:1 duplicate. Just comparing pictures of it to the episodes themselves should illustrate that it's an approximation at best. Things are different colours, different shapes, in different places... The chairs stand out as particularly rough approximations, for example.

Re:For all intents and purposes, it is the same (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 years ago | (#41725991)

The replica set was very far from an exact 1:1 duplicate. Just comparing pictures of it to the episodes themselves should illustrate that it's an approximation at best. Things are different colours, different shapes, in different places... The chairs stand out as particularly rough approximations, for example.

The Enterprise-D set was destroyed during filming of Star Trek Generations. A new Enterprise-E set was created for subsequent movies and that set was moved to the Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas. The colors and stuff differ because of it. And don't confuse it with the Star Trek Exhibition that's running around (one of the sets is the TOS bridge, the other is the TNG bridge). From what appears to have happened, the E bridge was tossed into the backlot and the Exhibition was recreated.

It's also important to note that the E bridge has higher details because it was used in movies. The original D bridge could be pretty low-res because to this date, all Star Trek series have been filmed purely for SDTV, or more correctly, NTSC. A LOT of cheats go into that - what the TV camera cannot see, is not detailed. While TNG was filmed onto film, it still was processed for TV - you cannot use the film as-is.

It's important as the Blu-Ray TNG set requires basically adding a bunch of detail that never existed in the first place. It's also why there's lot of in-jokes that could appear - they'd never been seen unless the camera happened to do a real close-up.

And I bet the sets that people could walk through were "upscaled" as well because instead of having to be for the movie screen, it's now something that people can walk into and examine in detail far higher than the silver screen.

It's TV and movies. It's how they can use foam rubber weapons that still look real - they're "real enough" for the camera even though up close it looks clearly fake.

Re:For all intents and purposes, it is the same (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41726023)

I'm confused, the D and E bridges were completely different in appearance, I don't know why you're bringing that in. The Vegas recreation bridge and the TV filming bridge are rather different. The doors on the Vegas bridge are much wider (for practical reasons), but many other shapes of things are off (curves are wrong, lengths are wrong). For one example, the seats on the filming set had a wide gap down the middle a few inches wide, while on the Vegas chairs (which are a rather different shape) there isn't a hole there at all, just a seam...

This has nothing to do with BluRay (which didn't make any changes to the set, no clue what you're talking about) or DVD or the E set. The Vegas set was done from scratch and wasn't very accurate, plain and simple.

"This isn't the original set unfortunately ..." (1)

RealGene (1025017) | about 2 years ago | (#41722853)

... so it's really just an abandoned amusement park ride. Recycle it as scrap.

Did not like set design of TNG (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 2 years ago | (#41722963)

I never really liked the TNG set that much, on an esthetic level. Of all of the sets I think that the Star Trek V-VI, and Excelsior class bridge in Vi and Generations were the best. I did not like the biege-orange color scheme on TNG. I also think the backlit user interfaces on V-VI also looked cooler, with the microgamma font etc. I also tend to prefer the Star Trek II-VI uniform types rather than the spandex / pajamas of TNG.

TNG was the best as far as story lines go however, its classic star trek.

Re:Did not like set design of TNG (3, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41723215)

Star Trek V? There was no Star Trek V movie. They inexplicably went straight from IV (the whales movie) to VI (the one where they make peace with the Klingons).

Re:Did not like set design of TNG (1, Informative)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 2 years ago | (#41723295)

They say that post traumatic stress disorder can cause blocking of painful memories. It is easier to forget a truamatic experience rather than have to replay the trauma again and again.

It's too bad that they have not made any more star trek movies since 1996 or so, when the last star trek movie was made. Since then, absolutely nothing. Really someone needs to revive the franchise, a reincarnation of Roddenberry.

Re:Did not like set design of TNG (1, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 years ago | (#41723481)

Agreed. It's also too bad they never made any sequels to The Matrix, or any more Alien movies after Cameron's "Aliens" in 1986, or any prequels to "Star Wars" explaining the whole Clone Wars thing.

Re:Did not like set design of TNG (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | about 2 years ago | (#41723689)

indeed, right. :-)

Re:Did not like set design of TNG (1)

Ksevio (865461) | about 2 years ago | (#41725407)

I have some mixed news for you...

Re:Did not like set design of TNG (1)

Guspaz (556486) | about 2 years ago | (#41725719)

Wait, didn't they make that one Next Generation movie, the one with the borg, before deciding to never make any movies ever again?

Re:Did not like set design of TNG (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41724673)

Two words... F e a t h e r D a n c e.

They didn't forget how to make seat belts! (1)

david.given (6740) | about 2 years ago | (#41723161)

They just choose not to use them. In an emergency, being thrown across the bridge is much safer than being strapped to one of those consoles.

Re:They didn't forget how to make seat belts! (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#41723471)

True. If you're bring thrown around the bridge, the consoles are probably already exploding and sending showers of sparks right where you were just sitting.

Re:They didn't forget how to make seat belts! (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | about 2 years ago | (#41725989)

Yes, unfortunately "the fuse" to prevent consoles blowing up would not be invented for another 900 years.

Re:They didn't forget how to make seat belts! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41723787)

3 words "ass tractor beams".

Wasteful Hollywood (1)

ebinrock (1877258) | about 2 years ago | (#41723301)

This just goes to show how wasteful Hollywood is, and how they have no foresight. If they would just save the expensive sets they build, particularly for very popular franchises like Star Trek, and not want to dismantle/destroy everything after the shooting wraps, they could actually make more money off of it by selling tickets for tours, etc. Hollywood's inefficiency and wastefulness is well documented in Robert Rodriguez's book Rebel Without A Crew. Good book to check out.

Re:Wasteful Hollywood (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#41723499)

This just goes to show how wasteful Hollywood is, and how they have no foresight.

Having gone dumpster-diving at the end of major movie shoots I'm always amused when I see some Hollywood actor telling us how we must recycle and conserve stuff. On the plus side, I don't think the indie movies I worked on ever had to pay for a light gel because we collected so many perfectly good ones that had been thrown away just because the movie wrapped.

I remember Roger Corman saying that one reason he could make movies so cheaply in the 60s and 70s was because he kept sets and reused them, rather than just tearing them down and throwing them away.

The Prime Directive (1)

guttentag (313541) | about 2 years ago | (#41723863)

From TFA:

It is our Prime Directive to completely restore the STAR TREK THE NEXT GENERATION D Bridge Set to make it a Fully Interactive, Simulator available for Display, Parties, Movie Showings, Fundraising, Charities, Fan Films, as well as newly created interactive Education Missions, so entire classrooms of students can steer the Enterprise to other planets, galaxies and more!

Poor choice of words. I know the marketing speak is meant to energize the fans with catch phrases, but if they actually thought about it the Prime Directive [wikipedia.org] is an unchanging axiom:

As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Star Fleet personnel may interfere with the normal and healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes introducing superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world whose society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Star Fleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation.

In other words, "don't provide advanced technology to civilizations that don't have it yet." Contaminating an old bridge set (that was built before the technology to give it real, functional touch screens) by outfitting it with modern, working touch screens would seem to be a violation of the Prime Directive... even if it is for the purpose of saving the ship.

Re:The Prime Directive (1)

countach (534280) | about 2 years ago | (#41725217)

Yes but 21st century man is the recipient of this old retrofitted bridge set, so there is no violation.

LCARS (1)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | about 2 years ago | (#41726225)

Just noticed the LCARS marking on their website and it occurred to me that the LCARS interface, designed back in the late '80s to look futuristic, is starting to look pretty dated now.

Only when you look at the dates that you realize that the series is 25 years old now. I feel old :P

N.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...