The truth about Discovery and the Prime universe.

[Jedman67]

Probably did borrow some ships from FC and DS9 for Endgame. But also it's a different era. Aside from the obvious 'pandering to the fans', DSC is essentially a reboot, with a mighty big budget to boot. CBS wants to relaunch the franchise to appeal to younger viewers and a wider, more mainstream audience. They do not want to bend over for the Trek fanatics, no matter how warm or soft the exam gloves feel. It makes little sense for them to try to reuse earlier scifi assets when it costs practically nothing to design and shoot a new ship from scratch.

 

[Mudd]

Redesign or not, they'll build a new Enterprise model if they feature it.

 

[Kemaiku]

The model for TOS-R was "overbuilt" in 2006 and needed to be downgraded to be feasible after the first 10 episodes, I think the high detail model was just reduced and no longer kept. Which means the one we have, if it's even able to be ported at all (doubtful) wouldn't look better than 720. For a 4K show that's useless.

The Beyond Enterprise and Enterprise A can't be used because of the movie assets not being allowed for TV use, so there's that.

There is no CGI model of an Enterprise that will work with the software they're using for Discovery anyway. That goes for the NX-01 as well, the CGI models are apparently a pain in the ass to even get the Ship of the Line renders out of each year.

 

[Jedman67]

What's the program of choice for building 3D models for hi-def tv and feature films?

 

[Kemaiku]

I'm not even sure what Discovery is using. They only hired the CBS inhouse team to do the preliminary work and are apparently now outsourcing it for the post production. So it's whoever gets the contract and what software they plan to use.

Do they even let the fans in on that kind of behind the scenes information?

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

Does anyone know or can tell what's the program that we see used for the USS Shenzhou?

USS_Shenzhou.gif

 

[Brainsucker]

We can also ask, "Why not just not do Star Trek at all and instead do something completely original?" You want clean? That would be as clean as it could get.

Me, I'm enjoying a lot of original material such as The Americans and Mr. Robot. I'm also enjoying adaptations such as Agents of SHIELD and Supergirl. Legion just made a strong start.

Along with all of that, there's room in my world for another iteration of Star Trek. I count at least nine major reimaginings of Star Trek so far; this one is expected to make ten (see below). Naturally, I'm willing to give the version that's currently being made by the entrusted parties a whirl. I've done that thing many times before.

Major reimaginings of Star Trek, by any other name:
1."Where No Man Has Gone Before"
2. "The Corbomite Maneuver"
3. "Beyond the Farthest Star"
4. The Motion Picture
5. The Wrath of Khan
6. "Encounter at Farpoint"
7. "Emissary"
8. "Broken Bow"
9. Star Trek (2009)
10. Discovery

What I'm counting as a major reimagining is one that involves a shift in continuity, format, tone, and/or narrative focus not seen before in the franchise. It's not as important to quibble about exactly how many times it's happened than to realize that it's already happened a lot.

Discovery will be just another ride on this mystery ship, fellow babies, the one we all supposedly enjoy.

This is definitely a miss understanding. The new universe that has no relation with Prime Universe doesn't mean that it's not Star Trek. I can give you an example, by using a Japanese Anime Franchise. Gundam. There are a lot of Gundam series. A lot of them has the setting that different from the original Gundam world setting / universe. The story is different, the technology is also has different taste. But they still Gundam, because they still has similarity with the original Gundam World, although at the same time different.

The universe is new, clean. But you still can put the similar races like Vulcan, Klingon etc with new aesthetic, behavior, history, etc. The ship can be the same USS Enterprise, with similarity basic model, but give the artist a great deal of freedom to make it better. The tech can be similar or different, depend on the time when this series is made.

JJ-Abram is also happen in a new universe, but they still have a relation with Prime Universe, and not only that, they break the Prime Universe by destroying the Romulus. So why not just make another new Star Trek universe that won't disturb the two existing universe so the studio can expand the creativity without afraid of the past continuity?

Prime Universe = complete
JJ-Abram = Paramount Picture for Movie
new Universe = new series

 

[Longinus]

Well, no. You're trying to sell your audience on this being the future of the time they currently live in. You can't go from iPhones that can do pretty much anything to tricorders with CRT screens and breadbox computers.

Oh, which iPhone model can scan for lifeforms and detect and analyse various forms of matter and energy? Is it iPhone 7? (I wouldn't know, I use Samsung.)

There were times in TOS and TNG where it took hours to retrieve simple information from the ship's computer, that won't fly now when the masses have Google and can retrieve information in seconds.

I don't remember this ever happening, but even if it did, that is not sort of thing that needs to be replicated.

 

[Mudd]

Oh, which iPhone model can scan for lifeforms and detect and analyse various forms of matter and energy? Is it iPhone 7?(I wouldn't know, I use Samsung.)

This is the sort of rationalization which impresses hardcore fans but misses the point. If the tech looks out of date and the way characters interact with it is clumsy relative to current consumer technology only the already-sold will accept it.

 

[BillJ]

Oh, which iPhone model can scan for lifeforms and detect and analyse various forms of matter and energy? Is it iPhone 7?(I wouldn't know, I use Samsung.)

But the chipsets and equipment continue to miniaturize. It is crazy to think that this trend won't continue. So, your communicator in two hundred years, should be able to do a heck of a lot more yet still be a pretty compact piece of equipment.

Heck, in the 24th century PADD's don't even multitask.

 

[Longinus]

This is the sort of rationalization which impresses hardcore fans but misses the point. If the tech looks out of date and the way characters interact with it is clumsy relative to current consumer technology only the already-sold will accept it.

I find mindboggling that how to so many people 23rd century tech have to look like 2017 tech or it is not 'believable.' How the fuck is it believable that a tech from centuries from now would look like it had been designed today?

I have said may times that tweaking the details and quality of the props is absolutely fine. But there is no need to jettison the 60's aesthetics, it is no less believable for future tech than 2017 aesthetic. For all we know in the future computers will look like art nouveau sculptures.

 

[Longinus]

But the chipsets and equipment continue to miniaturize. It is crazy to think that this trend won't continue. So, your communicator in two hundred years, should be able to do a heck of a lot more yet still be a pretty compact piece of equipment.

So this is why phones have recently started to get bigger?

Also, Trek communicators look pretty compact compared to this:

Heck, in the 24th century PADD's don't even multitask.

Yeah, that's silly. And again the sort of thing that is absolutely fine to alter.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

This is definitely a miss understanding. The new universe that has no relation with Prime Universe doesn't mean that it's not Star Trek. I can give you an example, by using a Japanese Anime Franchise. Gundam. There are a lot of Gundam series. A lot of them has the setting that different from the original Gundam world setting / universe. The story is different, the technology is also has different taste. But they still Gundam, because they still has similarity with the original Gundam World, although at the same time different.

The universe is new, clean. But you still can put the similar races like Vulcan, Klingon etc with new aesthetic, behavior, history, etc. The ship can be the same USS Enterprise, with similarity basic model, but give the artist a great deal of freedom to make it better. The tech can be similar or different, depend on the time when this series is made.

JJ-Abram is also happen in a new universe, but they still have a relation with Prime Universe, and not only that, they break the Prime Universe by destroying the Romulus. So why not just make another new Star Trek universe that won't disturb the two existing universe so the studio can expand the creativity without afraid of the past continuity?

Prime Universe = complete
JJ-Abram = Paramount Picture for Movie
new Universe = new series

Alternate realities are the bread and butter of more than few Star Trek episodes. I'm hard-pressed to imagine that one could make a new continuity without some fans insisting that even it must somehow be related to the old, whether its via time travel, a la "Parallels," via whatever the Q can access, or whatnot. An interviewer presses a producer for answers, and before you know it, bang, the trufans have their nominal connection, in some variation of what's described in the OP. Some fans will never be satisfied. Why should the showrunners try too hard with the technobabble to justify what they're doing? Just make a show, and hope you've made a good one, is what I was trying to say.

 

[Mudd]

I find mindboggling that how to so many people 23rd century tech have to look like 2017 tech or it is not 'believable.' How the fuck is it believable that a tech from centuries from now would look like it had been designed today?

Nothing about Star Trek is believable as being three centuries or more in our future.

The audience simply has to buy it or it doesn't work (One good example was the evolution of phasers during TNG). As the producers noted way back during TOS, the show is being made today for today's audience, not for futurists or for some future generation.

The whole notion of the tricorder as a separate device from the communicator is clumsy and they should do away with it. We carry computers that communicate with us everywhere we go now; they include high resolution video displays and respond to voice command. Star Trek's tech should not be less advanced than that.

 

[Ronald Held]

Consistency is an important part of StarTrek. A higher res version of Pike's Enterprise is not a problem compared to it looking different. Why should there ships look different in exterior? Just because a CG person can is insufficient.

 

[KennyB]

I'm not even sure what Discovery is using. They only hired the CBS inhouse team to do the preliminary work and are apparently now outsourcing it for the post production. So it's whoever gets the contract and what software they plan to use.

Do they even let the fans in on that kind of behind the scenes information?

NOPE

 

[Mudd]

Because in detail it looks like a fifty year-old design. In concept, it's wonderful

This is why they keep revising it. ST:TMP, TNG and nuTrek all kept the essential design and rethought the specifics. Discovery will likely do the same.

 

[aridas sofia]

How does it "in detail" look like a fifty year old design? Because it isn't covered in greeblies? That is the fashion today, started in the 70s. Can you imagine if the aesthetic that model was designed to work with - smooth surfaces played upon by reflections, shadows and colors - were employed using today's tools? It wouldn't look dated. It would look entirely novel.

Someone used a CG model if the TOS Enterprise and put it in a scene from the first Abrams movie, lit as Abrams had lit his ship. The thing looked amazing. And that is just using tge techniques Abrams devised for his model. Can you imagine if professionals took full advantage of the design?

http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/10/8185787/star-trek-original-enterprise-new-movies

http://smg.photobucket.com/user/PixelMagic/media/ent_reveal_2.jpg.html

 

[Gepard]

I'm not even sure what Discovery is using.

Maya no doubt. 99% of the US VFX industry runs on it these days. 3D Studio Max only has real market share in Europe, Cinema 4D is relegated to motion graphics, Modo sticks around as a dedicated modeling tool and not much else, and LightWave is the domain of hobbyists.

 

[BillJ]

Someone used a CG model if the TOS Enterprise and put it in a scene from the first Abrams movie, lit as Abrams had lit his ship. The thing looked amazing. And that is just using tge techniques Abrams devised for his model. Can you imagine if professionals took full advantage of the design?

Neat. But in each shot, it seemed the Enterprise was darkened to the point of masking most of the details.

Though, you'd have no problem selling me (45 year-old, life long fan) on using the original Enterprise. But, I'm not the target audience of Discovery or the Abrams films (even though I like them). Sometime the truth does burn to a degree, but it is what it is.