Not to throw anymore gasoline onto the fire that's been generated from this thread, but isn't it plausible that the "viewscreen" is, in fact, a window with a visual interface built into it that, at the touch of a button or a voice command, can be directed on any target or location around the ship? That seems far more likely than the "rotating bridge" hypothesis.
That's what I and countleds others have suggested in this thread and others.
its the most logical explanation
Why?
You keep repeating, over and over, your PERSONAL OPINION, stating it as though it's somehow "fact," and then behaving as though it's some form of personal insult for everyone else not to agree.
Please address this one point, then. Show us, on any of the images of the "Abramsprise," where that window is. We have several shots where you'd be able to see this "window" if it existed, yet we can not. So either the SFX sequences we've been shown are incorrect, or this isn't really a window. There is no other option.
Now... we DO know that the Kelvin has windows on the top deck. And we've assumed (not unreasonable so, but it's still an ASSUMPTION) that this is where the Kelvin's bridge is. But do we know that? All we really know is that Deck 1 of the Kelvin has windows. And for anyone who's ever seen the classic Jupiter II from the original "Lost in Space" series, we see why they're there... the entire (presumed) bridge module on the Kelvin looks like the Jupiter II, nearly perfectly. So isn't it possible that those windows are there more as an homage to another of Abrams' favorite shows as for any "practical" reason?
Now... since we have no such physical, visible-from-outside "window" on the CGI Enterprise we've seen, that leaves us with two possibilities:
1) There is a real window, but it's somehow "hidden" (two-way mirror? A big metal shield over the windows that can drop away?)
2) It's NOT a real window, but is a holographic-capable display screen, showing images taken from any of the many sensor emplacements scattered about the ship. In which case, the image you see behind "Lecture-mode Spock" there might be taken from one of the triad of sensor clusters around the base of that bridge module (which are clearly duplicates of those seen on the TMP ship, though vastly oversized in comparison to that much more elegant work from 1979)
In other words... what you see here could be the image captured from a nearby "holocamera" external to the ship, not a "real, physical view."
Let me be clear - I HATE the idea that Abrams put a "window on the bridge," because it makes absolutely no technical sense. There are several central reasons for that:
1) Given a brightly-lit bridge (which we clearly have)... well, think about how much you can see, outside of your car, if you have the interior lights on at night and are driving in an area without tons of streetlights. SO... under most circumstances, a "bridge window" would simply appear to be a big black opening where the folks on the bridge would be able to see absolutely nothing.
2) Then there's the other extreme. Since in space, the only "ambient light" is starlight (no atmospheric scattering), when you get any form of lighting sufficient to be seen, it's going to be direct sunlight... and will be dazzlingly brilliant. BLINDINGLY so, in fact.
3) The only time a "window" makes any practical sense is when you're in orbit over a planet... and even then, solely for observation of said planet's surface. But a forward-facing window isn't particularly useful for that purpose, is it? In order to see the planet, you'd have to be FACING the planet. Possible? Sure... but considering how the primary sublight thrust system on the Enterprise is directional, and that to maintain orbits, we've been shown that they need active impulse power for corrections... well... it seems rather pointless to only be able to "see" the planet when you can't use your thrust source, doesn't it?
4) Obviously, for a "bridge main viewer" you need the ability to put whatever information or imagery you want onto it. Yes, it would be possible to have "overlays" on top of a window, and in certain circumstances, this would be highly desirable (say, for an atmospheric shuttle pilot's window). It's not impossible... but what possible advantage would this give for a STARSHIP bridge? It's hardly the same thing.
A starship "main viewer" has two main users... it's the main display for use by the helmsman during manual maneuvers, and it's the captain's main "what is my ship doing?" feedback mechanism. It can also be used as a "map display" during impromptu bridge-based briefing sessions and for major communications.
For the helmsman, it needs to be a heavily-processed, entirely configurable display. It needs to be able to show forward angle, of course, but any other angle as well. It needs to be able to show different magnification levels. It needs to have "information processing" in order to turn otherwise unviewable scenes into ones that the human eye (or any other species' eye for that matter) can easily process without having to strain... for brightness levels, but for other things as well. It needs to be ISOLATED from direct exposure to harmful energies (can't have the entire bridge crew's eyes getting flash-fried in their sockets, now, can we???)
It's only REAL, MEANINGFUL PURPOSES can be served only... ONLY... by it being a computer monitor... not by it being a "window."
So, either (1) it's not a physical window at all, or (2) Abrams' version of the Enterprise is both inconsistent (when viewed inside versus outside!) and utterly nonsensical and horrifically-poorly-designed (and thus utterly unusable).
I'm on the fence as to which of those two happen to be the case. But if it does turn out to be #2... then that's another reason that this movie will fulfill the "odd number curse."
