Bridge Tour Promo

[Psion]

You keep repeating this notion ad nauseum as if it's a given, but you do not provide any explanation or support whatsoever for it.

I find that the Discovery bridge looks a lot more utilitarian and industrial in comparison to the advanced, comfortable nature of the TNG era. Discovery is a workhorse. The Ent-D is a flying luxury hotel.

Kor

Yeah. It looks like the Discovery sets are made using more advanced materials and fabrication techniques, but the workspaces they represent, don't look more advanced than TNG at all.

 

[Roald]

Agreed.. there are physical buttons, opposed to the all touch screen controles in TNG...

 

[CorporalClegg]

You keep repeating this notion ad nauseum as if it's a given, but you do not provide any explanation or support whatsoever for it.

I find that the Discovery bridge looks a lot more utilitarian and industrial in comparison to the advanced, comfortable nature of the TNG era. Discovery is a workhorse. The Ent-D is a flying luxury hotel.

Kor

Even if the Discovery bridge is more advance than the TNG bridge, who cares?

The shit on my desk is more advanced than half the stuff on the TNG bridge.

 

[Michael]

I still think the show is continuity-breakingly advanced in its application of forcefields, though. That's Nemesis-level stuff.

In what way? They seem to work like ordinary forcefields always worked in Star Trek.

 

[Ridcully]

Love it!!
Looks fantastic!
I think this show will be a good surprise.

 

[tenmei]

Has anyone tried to sketch the layout of the Discovery and Shenzhou Bridges yet?

 

[MarsWeeps]

Has anyone tried to sketch the layout of the Discovery and Shenzhou Bridges yet?

Probably.

 

[RAMA]

Because the bridge is so generic, the likes are 1,800 to 19 dislikes for this bridge promo.

RAMA

 

[The Librarian]

Also, none of this addressed the fact that the Discovery bridge looks more advanced then the TNG bridge, much less the TOS bridge. The reboot movies had an excuse, this doesn't. Well, except that STD has terrible producers/showrunner/set designers and none of them give a crap about Trek and are just designing their own shitty Sci Fi show with vaguely Trek-ish stuff added presumably to keep the network happy. Outside of the exterior Federation ship design, it all looks either way too advanced or not Trekish.

What about the bridge is more advanced than the TNG bridge? Every console and screen on the TNG+ bridges - plus the older ships back to the movie era with the blue color scheme - was a fully configurable touch-screen display. Sure, most of the time it just looked like all they did was blink a bit, but whenever it was important they zoomed in close and suddenly even the Ops console could change what it was showing. What's the difference between that and the displays here on Discovery?

I asked this before just two pages ago and you refused to provide an answer. Do you intend to actually discuss this?

 

[RAMA]

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the stuff on the show actually looking like the stuff on the show. So it looked a bit goofy, so what? You can't go retconning stuff because you think it looks weird. In canon they had, what, 90 years between Enterprise and TOS (or 80 years between ENT and The Cage, I guess) for the tech to go from Enterprise to TOS, which is fine. STD is screwing up the continuity so I won't count that, and when you drop that the design elements evolve at least somewhat well from ENT to TOS to TNG/VOY/DS9.

The movies then do a good job transitioning from TOS to more TNGish style bridges and other tech. I have not, for one second, considered the TOS style to not fit with everything else in Trek. Since three of the later Trek series share the same philosophy (and no its not "homage", its sticking to the continuity of what the damn ship/tech looked like), I'd say I've got a fairly solid position. That position being that the TOS stuff looked exactly like what we saw on TV, although I'm enough of a modern guy to got with TOS-Remastered for exterior stuff.

Also, none of this addressed the fact that the Discovery bridge looks more advanced then the TNG bridge, much less the TOS bridge. The reboot movies had an excuse, this doesn't. Well, except that STD has terrible producers/showrunner/set designers and none of them give a crap about Trek and are just designing their own shitty Sci Fi show with vaguely Trek-ish stuff added presumably to keep the network happy. Outside of the exterior Federation ship design, it all looks either way too advanced or not Trekish.

There is a very simple answer. It's a reimagining. There, now you can rest easy. No charge.

RAMA

 

[Vger23]

There is a very simple answer. It's a reimagining. There, now you can rest easy. No charge.

RAMA

BUTT THEY SEZ IT FITZ IN2 TEH STAR TRACK CANNON AND IZ NAWT A RE-EMAJINING!!!! THEY IZ LYARS AND HATEZ TEH FANZ!!!!

HATE US ALL!!!!!!!!!1!1!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the stuff on the show actually looking like the stuff on the show. So it looked a bit goofy, so what? You can't go retconning stuff because you think it looks weird. In canon they had, what, 90 years between Enterprise and TOS (or 80 years between ENT and The Cage, I guess) for the tech to go from Enterprise to TOS, which is fine. STD is screwing up the continuity so I won't count that, and when you drop that the design elements evolve at least somewhat well from ENT to TOS to TNG/VOY/DS9.

Also, none of this addressed the fact that the Discovery bridge looks more advanced then the TNG bridge, much less the TOS bridge. The reboot movies had an excuse, this doesn't. Well, except that STD has terrible producers/showrunner/set designers and none of them give a crap about Trek and are just designing their own shitty Sci Fi show with vaguely Trek-ish stuff added presumably to keep the network happy. Outside of the exterior Federation ship design, it all looks either way too advanced or not Trekish.

You're entitled to your silly opinion that a modern big-budget television show with modern production design capabilities should be forced to adhere to a 50-year-old design aesthetic despite publicly available technology having surpassed it in many respects.

But no one appointed you King of All Trekkies and Arbiter of who are or are not TrueFans. This nonsense where you attack the people making a movie or series because they fail your extreme standards of ideological purity is out of line and needs to stop. Insinuating that people, some of whom have spent the bulk of their career working in and around the franchise, don't care about Star Trek or making a decent product is insulting and frankly stupid. Just because they're more flexible than you and understand that slavishly following the bridge design from half a century ago is less important then making good stories with good characters and good dialogue doesn't mean they don't care about Star Trek. And whenever it's possible, they have gone the extra mile to make sure things like the props match up with their TOS counterparts, but that's not the top priority, nor should it be.

The worst part about it is, you almost always end up going back on your earlier comments once you see the finished product and find out it wasn't as bad as what you thought it would be, yet you never learn from that and dial down the vitriol beforehand. It's not against the rules to insult the showrunner's Trek fan purity, so you're not in any trouble, but you have to know how people react to your over-the-top rants by this point well enough to know when you're going to be pushing buttons. Stop it.

 

[Vger23]

You're entitled to your silly opinion that a modern big-budget television show with modern production design capabilities should be forced to adhere to a 50-year-old design aesthetic despite publicly available technology having surpassed it in many respects.

But no one appointed you King of All Trekkies and Arbiter of who are or are not TrueFans. This nonsense where you attack the people making a movie or series because they fail your extreme standards of ideological purity is out of line and needs to stop. Insinuating that people, some of whom have spent the bulk of their career working in and around the franchise, don't care about Star Trek or making a decent product is insulting and frankly stupid. Just because they're more flexible than you and understand that slavishly following the bridge design from half a century ago is less important then making good stories with good characters and good dialogue doesn't men they don't care about Star Trek. And whenever it's possible, they have gone the extra mile to make sure things like the props match up with their TOS counterparts, but that's not the top priority, nor should it be.

The worst part about it is, you almost always end up going back on your earlier comments once you see the finished product and find out it wasn't as bad as what you thought it would be, yet you never learn from that and dial down the vitriol beforehand. It's not against the rules to insult the showrunner's Trek fan purity, so you're not in any trouble, but you have to know how people react to your over-the-top rants by this point well enough to know when you're going to be pushing buttons. Stop it.

Attention-seeking behavior can be powerful.

That's all this is.

 

[Kenobiwan85]

Well, except that STD has terrible producers/showrunner/set designers and none of them give a crap about Trek and are just designing their own shitty Sci Fi show

I had to stop reading this post when I got to this line just because of how disrespectful and wrong it is.

 

[RAMA]

I had to stop reading this post when I got to this line just because of how disrespectful and wrong it is.

Yeah...guess who's going on ignore?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Yeah...guess who's going on ignore?

Infraction for announcing that you're putting a poster on ignore. You know better. Comments to PM.

Attention-seeking behavior can be powerful.

That's all this is.

Alright, let's not dogpile on the guy now.

 

[tenmei]

Probably.

Cheers - I meant more in a - did they care to share the sketches way.

 

[Tuskin38]

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the stuff on the show actually looking like the stuff on the show.

Because it won't make money.

Very few people would watch something that looks like it was made in the '60s.

 

[tenmei]

This is the best I could do - apologies for the rubbish doodling

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

I don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the stuff on the show actually looking like the stuff on the show. So it looked a bit goofy, so what?

I have very often re-read my library of classic science fiction novel (Clarke, Heinlein, Asimov, Bova, etc). A book I might re-read in 2017 will elicit different images in my mind of the technology being described compared to the images those exact same words might have elicited when I first read that book in, say 1987 -- or the images the words would have elicited if I read that same book when it was published in the 1960 s or 1970s.

The written descriptions don't change (obviously the words are the same), but the ideas on my mind of what those words are describing changes.

More to the point...
...I suppose If I read a Star Trek novel in 2017 that took place during "The Cage" timeline, but took place aboard a totally different ship, I would most likely not imagine that ship having gooseneck viewers, nor would I imagine that their communicators have visible resistors in their circuitry, or that they were all wearing velour turtlenecks.. I would probably imagine more futuristic-looking technology (and art direction in general) than what I saw in "The Cage".

Maybe if I read this fictitious Cage-era book in the 1960s the written descriptions might elicit "The Cage" visuals in my head, but not if I read that same book and same written description in 2017.