Danger Ace wrote:
aridas sofia wrote:
The painstaking detail taken in designing a set like the NX-01 bridge ends up being self defeating as the years roll by and all those things it says it does become more and more laughable as being things that would be done another way.
The interior designs of all Treks were largely decided upon for reasons of practicality with an eye towards "contemporary" standards of the day. They wished to appear forward thinking but relatable to audiences of their respective days. Nothing laughable about that.
And, as I stated earlier, even in retrospect the "look" serves a valid function in providing a contextual framework. The 60s look of TOS helps cue us, for example, to be forgiving in their attitude towards women.
Though I will say TNG was not as advanced in terms of how they depicted women as they should have been.
I would also confess to finding terms such as "laughable" to be wrong and offensive. Offensive because I view the artisans and technicians who did the best they could do in providing a real and plausible backdrop for the story to inhabit. No matter what the age or era these folks should be hailed and their efforts never derided by disdainful laughter.
I'm sorry you find the term offensive. You are taking it the wrong way. No one has greater respect for the artists that defined the look of the various series than I do. My point is simple -- that from the point of view of future viewers, the choice of say, the NX-01's plasma screen monitors in a near future age of self-luminous Organic Light Emitting Diode or Nano-Emissive displays will in retrospect look nearsighted. The abstract flat displays in TOS will leave room for future tinkerers to insert moving images if they choose, while those thick plasma screens from the 1990s will always be there on that 22nd century bridge.
That doesn't mean the choice was "wrong". It means it will have a shorter shelf life. "Laughable" like the carefully conceived and wrought 1950 Robert Heinlein film "Destination Moon" looked laughable a decade after it was made. Technology had taken a different path and the rockets and pressure suits of 1960 looked very different from those depicted in the movie, which looked locked in an era of extrapolated V-2s.
Since that is the subject of this thread -- the "shelf life" of TOS design -- I believe my comment is pertinent -- not impertinent.