RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,413
Posts: 5,360,074
Members: 24,631
Currently online: 474
Newest member: vicky013


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Star Trek TV Series > Star Trek - Original Series

Star Trek - Original Series The one that started it all...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 3 2013, 10:02 PM   #61
Danger Ace
Commander
 
Danger Ace's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
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.
__________________
Yours Truly,
Vic Falcone
Danger Ace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 10:06 PM   #62
Mysterion
Rear Admiral
 
Mysterion's Avatar
 
Location: SB-31, Daran V
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

BillJ wrote: View Post
I thought the bridge was roughly the size of its TOS counterpart?
It was. I think the way it was laid-out in TNG just made it seem to be larger than the TOS bridge. I had a lot more open space, so I think it seemed less closded-in than Kirk's bridge did.
__________________
USS Galileo Galilei, NCC-8888
Prima Inter Pares
Mysterion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 3 2013, 10:09 PM   #63
DalekJim
Fleet Captain
 
DalekJim's Avatar
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

TOS is probably the most dated in its look but the quality of the scripts means it still holds up. The most dated element of the production for me is the music. Especially the music that plays for the 7 second awkward pause after a "joke" has been made.

The most futuristic Trek is The Motion Picture. Though that loses points for McCoy's disco outfit.
DalekJim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 02:36 AM   #64
xortex
Commodore
 
Location: Staten Island, NY
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

I remember them saying they had to break down a wall in the studio to accomidate the TNG bridge which had to be larger because the ship was so much larger itself with over 1000 people instead of 400. Plus it slanted down, like Picard's head too. It was ridiculous like they kept changing their mind as to want they wanted and went with a mish mash of several different designs stuck together. GR was getting dimensional then I think. The predators were too much for him. they made him look like he was standing still and was an outdated dinosaur, almost to the point where seemed like Berman just told everyone to ignore him and worship the Golden calf like E.G. Marshell did in Moses. GR was no Charton Heston at that time. The fix was in. Even his memos were probably being ignored and laughed at like TOS was this goofy, corny, outdated thing compared to what they were doing, only none of them, including GR at the time knew what they were doing really.
xortex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 03:15 AM   #65
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

Danger Ace wrote: View Post
aridas sofia wrote: View Post
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.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 04:29 AM   #66
Dale Sams
Captain
 
Dale Sams's Avatar
 
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

DalekJim wrote: View Post
TOS is probably the most dated in its look but the quality of the scripts means it still holds up. The most dated element of the production for me is the music. Especially the music that plays for the 7 second awkward pause after a "joke" has been made.

The most futuristic Trek is The Motion Picture. Though that loses points for McCoy's disco outfit.
I don't think the music is 'dated', I just know every damn cue. I can play them in my head. I know exactly what humorous cue you're talking about. (Actually I'm thinking of the whimsical, puzzled cue as featured in Tomorrow is Yesterday. "A son, I...have a son")
Dale Sams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 05:26 AM   #67
Danger Ace
Commander
 
Danger Ace's Avatar
 
Location: California
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
No one has greater respect for the artists that defined the look of the various series than I do.
I'll take you at your word.

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.
Then we are not so far apart, if at all. Yes, all Trek's will reflect the periods in which they are produced both in style and function. I just do not believe most future viewers will get hung up on that unalterable reality - at least to the point of turning their backs on it.

Example: My wife and I have been revisiting the Rockford Files TV series ('74-'80). The level of technology (or lack thereof) is noticable. Big boxey cars, no cell phones (even car phones were rare), no internet or personal computers. Rockfords using a portable printing press to make his phony business cards as oppossed to using a printer. Pretty much everything we take for granted today, but it is still incredible fun to watch because of the strength of the characters. The transcendence, universality, relatability of people and situations and conflicts.

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.
Well, again I feel there is a wrongmindedness to insisting on using "laughable" - as if folks watch old movies and TV with a hyper-critical eye in scrutinizing everything for the sole purpose of finding fault or to invalidate the production. Most folks, I believe, take things in stride and have their own built-in "anachromatic compensator" built right into their imaginations. They notice but do not let it distract.

Another example would be "Earth vs the Flying Saucers" were the tech and look is all dated but the concepts and strength of drama compels audiences past getting hung-up on it's dated look.

I believe my comment is pertinent -- not impertinent.
You have stated your beliefs and outlook - I respect that. That sort of sharing is absolutely why we are all here. I'm still not sure why you're determined to justify the overly harsh label of "laughable," but that is your right to do so.
__________________
Yours Truly,
Vic Falcone
Danger Ace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 05:40 AM   #68
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

Well, firstly I think "laughable" isn't such a bad thing. You place your bets and take your chances. We're talking prognostication here. The Rockford Files took place in a real, definite past. It looks dated because it is. Something pretending to show our future that is outpaced by reality before its time comes is no less art than "Metropolis" or HG Wells. The bets were a little off, that's all. And that can elicit an "I'm laughing with you" chuckle. Because hey- how many of us could do better? Few get things as right as Wah Chang's communicator or the TOS pad. And when they do, we should have room to applaud.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 05:59 AM   #69
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
Few get things as right as Wah Chang's communicator or the TOS pad. And when they do, we should have room to applaud.
Trek TOS had the tricorder, which looked pretty much like a 1960s portable radio or tape recorder with a small viewscreen. The PADD first appeared in TNG. ENT had PADDs that more closely resembled today's tablet computers.
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 06:18 AM   #70
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

Not the TNG Padd. The TOS Padd:

http://home.comcast.net/~propdept/padd.htm

Compare it to the original Apple pad- the Newton MessagePad from the early 1990s:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MessagePad
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 08:32 AM   #71
scotpens
Vice Admiral
 
scotpens's Avatar
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

^^ Oh, that thingy that Kirk was always using to sign off on fuel consumption reports or whatever. Yeah, I guess it could be retconned as an early-model PADD.

But I will never, never accept TOS landing parties being referred to as "away teams"!
__________________
“All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?”
scotpens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 09:31 AM   #72
Shaka Zulu
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Bulawayo Military Krral
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

maneth wrote: View Post
Of course, the one thing that really dates TOS in my eyes is the miniskirt (and no, that doesn't look any better in the Abramsverse either).
Which is why I wish that Abrams & Co. would drop the stupid miniskirts and let the women wear pants, as in the pilot 'The Cage'. In fact, several feminists have said that that's what should happen in Star Trek Into Darkness, and they said it in 2009-2010. Holding on to this part of Star Trek 'just because it's tradition' is bullshit; the modern military isn't like that for women generally (unless female personnel are in smart dress mode.)

I think that the bridge has dated, and the bridge seen in the Abramsverse is a lot better.
Shaka Zulu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 04:41 PM   #73
Admiral Buzzkill
Fleet Admiral
 
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

The flip side of using flatscreen computer displays in Enterprise is that they were animated (and within budget, always the primary consideration) and due to good graphic design they appeared to be providing information to the crew. The major issue that's always existed with Star Trek - and this is particularly true of TOS - is that the equipment on the bridge is attractive but rarely appears to be doing anything useful.

Probably the most persuasive instruments on the TOS bridge were Spock's viewer and Sulu's targeting scope, simply because you couldn't judge the visual plausibility of whatever they were looking at.

A second way in which the Enterprise bridge is more persuasive is that the design employs the kind of basic ergonomics - heights, angles, size of panel layouts - that people have become familiar with in modern office environments and personal computers. The TOS is much more seat-of-the pants in that regard. Uhura occupies a station that's twice the size it ought to be and tilted up before her at an extreme angle that happens to look good on camera because that angle better shows off the backlit jelly-button "control panels."

The TOS bridge is my favorite Star Trek set, period, but that's not because of its plausibility so much as the esthetics and way the design "plays" - yeah, getting to and from Kirk's chair is ridiculous, but the eye lines and character movement from level to level are great.
Admiral Buzzkill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 05:30 PM   #74
Harvey
Admiral
 
Harvey's Avatar
 
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
maneth wrote: View Post
Of course, the one thing that really dates TOS in my eyes is the miniskirt (and no, that doesn't look any better in the Abramsverse either).
Which is why I wish that Abrams & Co. would drop the stupid miniskirts and let the women wear pants, as in the pilot 'The Cage'. In fact, several feminists have said that that's what should happen in Star Trek Into Darkness, and they said it in 2009-2010. Holding on to this part of Star Trek 'just because it's tradition' is bullshit; the modern military isn't like that for women generally (unless female personnel are in smart dress mode.)

I think that the bridge has dated, and the bridge seen in the Abramsverse is a lot better.
Some of the women in the 2009 movie wore pants. Some didn't.
__________________
"This begs explanation." - de Forest Research on Star Trek

My blog: Star Trek Fact Check.
Harvey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 4 2013, 05:42 PM   #75
trevanian
Rear Admiral
 
trevanian's Avatar
 
Re: Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

xortex wrote: View Post
I remember them saying they had to break down a wall in the studio to accomidate the TNG bridge which had to be larger because the ship was so much larger itself with over 1000 people instead of 400. .
Seem to remember it is the same width as TOS bridge, but between 2 & 4 feet longer. Rest of effect is due to lens choice and brightness.

Back on the question ... I don't think TOS ever looked futuristic to me (how could it? I saw 2001 when I was 7-1/2, not even anything NASA has done has ever looked as good), but at times it looked RIGHT, which is more important.

I ascribe that to dramatic cross-lighting, with a shadow side that REALLY fell into shadow. Finnerman pioneered it, but Francis pushed it harder ... I just LOVE the way the bridge looks when the air is cut off in DAY OF THE DOVE (y'know, the 'ship out, freak!' scene.)

The only bridge that doesn't date for me is the TFF/TUC/E-B variant, which just seems to strike a decent balance between credibility and visual appeal (at least if you avoid seeing the TUC sliders and other retro-groaners.) Colors and contrast on VOYAGER's bridge were good too, from what I recall, though I haven't seen much of the show.

The TMP bridge always read as a Lockheed lunchroom during a power outage to me.

The Abrams stuff is just looney tunes. Regardless of how bright the TOS set was, there was contrast, dark consoles, red trim ... The Abrams bridge is a Target store's cosmetics aisle, way too bright to spend time in or to be able to read a display w/o sunglasses ... and that's even before the lensflare madness enters the picture!
trevanian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
aesthetic, color tv, design, futuristic, uniforms

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.