Cary L. Brown wrote:
Brutal Strudel wrote:
I can't argue with he logic of that, I just think the "earthbound" thinking extended all the way back to TOS and that scene in "Wolf in the Fold."
Actually, this might make for an interesting spin-off-thread....
"If you could go back to the 1960s and change things about Trek... what, if anything, would you change?"
Not sure which forum that would belong in, though. In the context of THIS forum, it's really "well, they're changing things now... how do we feel about the changes being made?" In Trek-Tech, it'd be a different set of ideas, though, I presume... and in Trek Art, yet another... and so on.
Right now, it works very well within the context of this thread, of course... since the topic is about "redesign being a good thing."
This much is true: if you were there (or The God Thing
, say), Trek would have been much more rigorous on the scientific front--that is, if GR wouldn't have vetoed all your suggestions (he never let the science get in the way of the fiction).
I think this goes back to what someone said far up-thread, about how the designs of Trek differed in philosophy from the designs of 2001. The Enterprise, however, wasn't simply a marriage between the rocket and the saucer, the two separate pulp/B-movie design lineages of the 30s, 40s and 50s. The subtle changes in the contours (compare the primary hull to the Jupter 2 or the C-57D and a warp nacelle to the Hugo Award) and even the choice in the surface color--an almost-white gray rather than silver or gunmetal--served to make those iconic, romantic shapes seem
rigorously engineered and thus "tricked" a lot of us into thinking Trek was hard SF when it was really very naive on that front. (My favorite SF author, Philip K. Dick, makes Trek look like a lecture series given by Richard Feynman so this is not a criticism--my degrees are in literature and history so I am likewise scientifically naive.)