MovieChat Forums > Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987) Discussion > The Enterprise-D Bridge has DATED BADLY

The Enterprise-D Bridge has DATED BADLY


It just looks far too brightly-lit, for one thing, and is HUGE, with a lot of empty space around. What is really bad however, is that stupid wooden structure that loops around the tactical station and the main command chairs, which doesn't fit in with what the ship is.

By comparison, the Bridges of the USS Defiant and the USS Voyager look much more utilitarian, more conservatively lit (why light the whole room when the display consoles emit their own light?) and more MODERN, and I think THEY will stand the test of time 20 years from now.

reply

I still prefer the original Enterprise bridge from 1966. Especially with Lt. Uhura sitting at her station in her tight mini-skirt uniform and go-go boots. The "Next Generation" bridge has the beige, plasic look of a 1980s indoor shopping mall.

reply

Uhura was certainly a great reason for watching Star trek.

reply

I eventually came to really like the D, but when the show started the bridge reminded me of a bank lobby and I would joke that I expected to see one of the crew members taking money out of an ATM.

reply

All it needed was a couple of potted philodendrons and a table with a ballpoint pen on a chain.

reply

Yes, it takes a while to enjoy batting for the other team. But once you do, it's full speed ahead, bucko!

reply

It's a ship designed for families and science.

Comparing Voyager and Defiant is dumb.

Here is the max crew sizes

Defiant - 50
Voyager - 150
Enterprise D - 15,000

The other thing is different technology and production time (Defiant for example is designed for war)

reply

"Enterprise D - 15,000"

That's bullshit for a start, they only ever mentioned just over 1000 for the Enterprise-D crew on many occasions.

reply

1014 to be exact ..lol

reply

read

MAX

Go and look it up.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Galaxy_class

You are confused with what it has as standard which is 1,000-6,000



reply

Nonsense. It looks great. However I think it's funny that the window also doubles as a screen.

reply

It's never a window, it's always a screen. High-tech spaceship wouldn't have a simple window at the front, when screen is much better for all kinds of purposes. Otherwise, how could Picard order zooms and enhances, if it's just a window? Also, a screen offers automatica protection from bright light, since camera can only take so much, and a screen can only display so much (obviously, they would never make a screen that can blind you, because that would be stupid and dangerous).

reply

Is this mentioned in the show? The reason I always thought it was a window because it always shows them going forward. I'm still on season 3 and I don't recall anytime where we see the screen and it's moving away.

reply

It's not a window.

It's called a view screen.

Kelvin timeline is mostly when they switched to using windows.

reply

I don't see any cameras outside the enterprise. How could they view something that is outside without something like a camera?

reply

Magic

It comes from sensor data and is processed to form image.

reply

Then you're an idiot. How can you see another ship that's 10,000 kilometers away through a window?

reply

... in space. With little to no light.

reply

it has been depicted as a window more than once, and it just happened again on SNW

reply

They never mentioned cameras. I always assumed it was a window but the computer was able to input what was needed on the window when it was possible.

reply

No it's a view screen.

It does not use cameras stop thinking as of today's standards.

It uses sensor data to create image on the screen.

If you want clear evidence it's not a window watch Generations film when the saucer crashes it shows the bridge and the walls.

Throughout the show they mention sensor data.

reply

Explain.

Why would something being brightly lit be bad or wrong? You just state this as if it's some kind of automatic fact. It isn't.

I have always hated the gloomy, dark crap they turned everything into, when the nature and reality IS brightly lit, so what exactly would be the problem of a high-tech spaceship that CAN be brightly lit, not be brightly lit? It's best to have more light to push away depression and make things easier to see.

It's definitely not TOO brightly lit whatsoever.

As far as the aesthetics go, you are making statements without explanations, without backing up anything you are saying. Why would empty space be bad? Have you ever heard of Feng Shui or human psychology? Ever heard of something called 'claustrophobia'? Open space elevates your happiness, it makes you feel like things are majestic, and if everything was 'busy' and cramped, it would make you feel like you are in a confined prison, work cubicle or some other really depressing place.

Think about anxiety, stress levels, etc. Think about how LONG you have to endure the same spaces, you damn BETTER well have as much empty space as you can!

Would you rather make a years-long journey on a ship where everything is cramped in an 'utilitarian' (for some reason, you seem to worship anything utilitarian in your post), way, or a cozy, livingroom-like, comfortable place with lots of open space to breathe, walk around, or just be?

Open space is psychologycally elevating, it makes you feel better than a cramped space. Basic psychology.

What's bad about the 'wooden structure', and why do you call it 'stupid', as if structures can have any kind of intelligence, let alone varying levels of it?

Why don't you think 'it doesn't fit in with what the ship is'? What do you mean by 'what the ship is'? Your post is very confusing, full of claims without backing up anything, and thus useless. Anyone can just spew opinionated statements and then use them to say something has 'aged' 'badly'..

reply

A TV show can't age, it stays exactly as it ever was.

So could you please elaborate and explain, or at least back up your completely detached opinions written as some kind of factual statements (which they are not)? Thank you.

reply

A TV show absolutely can age. It reveals the limitations of its time, both technical ones, and those of imagination. Look at the 1st pilot episode of the original series "The Cage." At the opening, there's a scene where someone prints off hard copy of a computer message -- from a console covered in big, mechanical switches and dials -- and hands it to Captain Pike. A small thing really, but it says a lot about the people who filmed that scene: it wasn't just that they didn't have the technology or budget in 1964 to depict a high-tech touch screen computer display (though they didn't), these people, who lived in a world of manual typewriters and printed messages, simply couldn't see to what extent miniaturized computers and touch screens and so on, would change things. So, in this show, these advanced space explorers interface with their technology in a way that seems laughably primitive to us today. Look at the film Forbidden Planet, and the huge analog controls of the spaceship C-57D, with nary a computer screen in sight. That might have looked like the future to people in 1956, but sure as hell doesn't today.

It's called "retro-futurism." The Fallout game franchise is deliberately built around it -- you look at a depiction of the future, but you don't see the future anymore, you see the design aesthetic, and the different vision of the past era that envisioned that future.

reply

and the 90's shows..they have what looks like tablets but they have to walk them to enginerring or someplace..why not just tranfer the data?????? LOL

reply

Matt Jeffries, the designer of the original starship Enterprise and its bridge certainly didn't like it. He once said in an interview "Gene asked me how I liked the show, and I said that he had taken the bridge of my ship and turned it into the lobby of the Hilton. And I have just never watched any of them since. I’m lost."

I'm with Jeffries. I never much cared for it either. I don't mind the bright light, but I do agree there is way much empty space. I get that the TNG bridge is a set and needs to work for drama purposes, but the original series bridge worked as a set too, and it looked a lot more functional. I also get that they wanted to show that technology was much more advanced a century on from Kirk's era, but efficiency should still matter. And if future engineers are able to design larger spaces that work with life support systems, they won't use that ability to create vast, cathedral-like interiors, they'll use it to cram in more equipment or other functional items.

reply

Remember on this ship we get two bridges.

Battle bridge which is the very small one.

reply


Too bright? I hate darkly lit shows.

I never watched Deep Space 9 because the damned ship is so dark and depressing. They can't afford light bulbs in the 24rd century??

reply

You definitely didn't watch Voyager, then? There is a funny moment in a crisis episode (Basics Pt 1) where even the leader of the villains who board the ship comments on how dark the bridge is.

reply


I did actually watch the Voyager series. It was darker than Next Gen, but borderline acceptable to me.

I watched about half one DS9 episode and when I switched during a commercial break, I never went back. To be fair, it was probably one of the more darkly lit ones and the episode wasn't particularly gripping plot-wise.

Also to be fair, I think my TV setup might be making the dark choice worse. Most people buy a TV and watch it in default mode (LEDs cranked to 100% output). My TV is set to render the correct black level and gamma, and my LEDs on my main TV are set to about 45%. The picture on my TV is gorgeous and many people want to know what kind it is. Blacks are black and bright whites are bright white, with no "light pollution" muddying parts of the picture which should be dark, so even the colors show better saturation.

reply

Fair enough, you like Voyager.

As for DS9, you should give it a go again because of the Dominion. I personally love this anti-Federation entity from an unknown quadrant of the galaxy, and they become major antagonists later on, even a massive war in the last few seasons. It really did away with Roddenberry's ethics and became popular as a result of the difficult choices made to swing the war in the Federation's favour.

I mean, when you have an anti-Federation made up of shapeshifters exactly like Odo (they are his people, in fact), genetically-engineered super soldiers and administrators who can't be poisoned and can come back many times via cloning, it at least got me interested.

Do you remember which DS9 episode you watched? It was probably S1, and it was probably very silly. I don't blame you. But please have a look at the show again, if only an overview video or something. Worf comes into the middle of it, and he kicks serious ass compared to TNG :)

reply


You're not the first person on MC to tell me DS9 is worth the watch (although it might have been you!!). I don't recall which episode it was as it was many years ago.

I'll try again on my workout room TV (I'll have to get another Firestick) where that TV is set pretty bright because the room is over my garage and has a huge window with no window treatments on it.

If you were trying to convince me to watch DS9, which episode would you recommend?

reply

"If you were trying to convince me to watch DS9, which episode would you recommend?"

Season 6's "In the Pale Moonlight" is very highly regarded, if not action-packed. The gist is that the Federation are losing the war against the Dominion, and so Sisko seeks to bring the Romulans into the war on their side with the help of a resident of the station, Garak, who is a former spy for the Cardassians. It's a long background story for Garak, but he is very compelling and popular, and the episode itself is very tense and suspenseful. I highly recommend it.

reply

Thanks. I'll check that one out.

I get that the Dominion are the bad guys, but is there anything else I should understand going in?

reply

A lot happens politically between the major powers of the Alpha Quadrant in this show, namely destabilisation caused by the leaders of the Dominion so that they can move in and take over:

- The Cardassians and Romulans have their intelligence agencies wiped out by the Dominion's super soldiers
- The Klingons are no longer allies with the Federation because of the distrust sowed by the Dominion's leaders
- Even Earth is threatened by the Dominion when it did nothing at all, because of sheer paranoia

Remember, the Dominion was created by and is ruled by shapeshifting aliens who were formerly persecuted by aliens who lacked this shapeshifting ability that they called "solids" who mistrusted them, hunted them and killed them, so they found a way to create an empire by which they would control the solids instead, portraying themselves as gods to the races they conquered and to the super soldiers they would later genetically engineer and breed in large numbers (the Jem'Hadar) and the administrators who would assist them in other ways, and be impervious to death (by cloning) and to poisons called the Vorta.

Think about the main villains, the Founders, the shapeshifters I mentioned: when you can change your physical shape into anyone or anything, then you can do whatever you want, reach whatever goal you want, and if you like, sow paranoia and misleading ideas into your enemies. That's what leads to the Dominion, which has lasted for well over 2000 years, if not 10,000!

Do you get what I like about this show now? :)

reply


I may try watching from the beginning to understand the nuance of what's going on by season 6.

Thanks for the time.

reply

You're welcome.

Although the Dominion storyline starts by the end of Season 2 ("The Jem'Hadar"), so start from there.

reply

Will do. If I like it a few episodes in I'll circle back to season 1.

reply