USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Crazy Eddie]

But saying those influences exist is not the same as saying there is no visual style that's particular to Trek.

And yet there IS no visual style that is "particular to Star Trek." Even Star Trek's visual style evolved over time between TNG's early years and later seasons, and even with DS9 and Voyager in the transition from model graphics to more elaborate and versatile CGI. The designs of the starships changed dramatically too, from the early Probert designs that dominated Season 1 to the more complex hull forms favored by Sternbach and John Eaves. Kelvinverse ships were mostly designed by Ryan Church and a handful of others who bring in YET ANOTHER completely different style, and Discovery has concepts by John Eaves being largely finished and fitted out by still other artists.

So no, there is no "Star Trek style" in particular. We got used to seeing the same handful of artists for a long period of time with their own distinct visual style. As it stands, the ships we're seeing on Discovery now were originally designed by the same guy who did the Enterprise-E and most of the ships from "First Contact." If Star Trek actually HAD a distinct visual style (which it doesn't) John Eaves would certainly know what that was far better than either of us.

Trek has always had an aesthetic of its own that's distinctive and immediately recognizable

Nope. TNG had an aesthetic of its own that was recognizable. It also had two other aesthetics when they changed FX teams and built new models halfway through its production run. DS9 also had its own aesthetic that was initially similar to TNG but later went Full Star Wars in the CG era. And Voyager and Enterprise kind of did their own thing.

Look, consider two other properties as (contrasting) examples. On the one hand, we've got nuBSG from 2003-forward. The show very clearly redesigned the ships from the original BSG (even though they were already from the post-2001:ASO, post-Star Wars period of "modern" starship design you're talking about). The new designs were homages, and also improvements (at least arguably; I know I liked them better). And since the show was explicitly a reboot, no one had cause to complain.

On the other hand, we've got the new wave of Star Wars sequels and prequels: TFA, TLJ, Rogue One, and others to come. Some of these involve retcons, but they are explicitly not rebooting anything. Accordingly, they have stuck scrupulously close to the original Star Wars design aesthetic (even when it practically screams 1970s), and when previously established ships appear, they look exactly like they did back in the day. (Hell, they've even taken the trouble to duplicate the look of characters played by dead actors... CGI Peter Cushing, anyone?) The production values and special effects are much more advanced, of course, but the basic look is 100% Star Wars. And it works, because that's what audiences wanted and expected... redesigning things would have been uncalled for.

Right. So in Star Trek's case, we have two differences compared to other properties:
1) A Pre-ASO production whose original designs and sets were produced to a very low quality for production reasons
2) A prequel from the original production that is not itself a reboot.

NuBSG still managed to throw in some of the classic cylon designs with relatively little change. The Cylons are on the nearer-end of the ASO transformation, so very little change was NOTICED.

Rogue one also threw in the classic X-wing, Tie fighter and Star Destroyer designs. These, too, were post AOS designs so again very little change was NOTICED.

The operative word in both cases is NOTICED. The Star Destroyers in Rogue One were updated significantly, as were the X-Wings and Y-Wings on Rogue one. Interesitngly, even the CG model of the Ghost -- which appears on screen for a grand total of 18 seconds -- had to be significantly re-textured and updated for the film since the original low-res model they used for the TV series wasn't nearly detailed enough for the big screen. This for a space craft design from a show that is still on the air.

You didn't NOTICE alot of the changes in Rogue One and BSG because very little needed to be done to bring those textures up to date. Put another way: certain things changed in science fiction between 1962 and 1972 that didn't change between 1972 and 2012. Paradigm shifts are funny like that, and TOS is on the wrong side of the last major shift for its designs and set pieces to be used without alteration.

In the context of DSC, what a lot of us are saying, in a nutshell, is that we would've preferred something more like the Star Wars approach.

Because of the ASO paradigm shift, "Something like the Star Wars approach" would have taken the designs from TMP and the films and slightly updated them in subtle ways. Based on what we've seen, it is possible that Discovery has done exactly this.

As no actual human being has a degree in Starship Engineering, I guess none of our opinions are worth a damn.

Pretty much. We can judge the ARTWORK in the context of the genre in general, but from a standpoint of Star Trek's internal history and logic? That's just us making up rules and being mad when somebody else doesn't follow them.

 

[Tuskin38]

The classic Enterprise is an iconic design, which basic shapes have endured for more than fifty years. The new DIS-Enterprise is SO friggin contemporary

The new enterprise keeps most of the same basic shapes as the old one.

 

[Prax]

Saying Star Trek didn't follow a "visual continuity," or that each series had a distinct aesthetic, different from one another, and that Discovery, or the films are just following the trend, is akin to the people on this site who claim that every new Klingon character introduced in history was a "reimagining of the Klingons."

The first ten films, and the first five series, all exist within the same universe, visually.

 

[lawman]

And yet there IS no visual style that is "particular to Star Trek."

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree here.

As it stands, the ships we're seeing on Discovery now were originally designed by the same guy who did the Enterprise-E and most of the ships from "First Contact." If Star Trek actually HAD a distinct visual style (which it doesn't) John Eaves would certainly know what that was far better than either of us.

I'll grant that Eaves is intimately familiar with the late-24th-century version of the Trek aesthetic. (I also think he's taken it in the wrong direction; the Ent-E is an ugly ship, and was ugly when it debuted in 1996, and I can't think of any other Trek designs in the past 22 years that have been particularly memorable or impressive, either.) However, that's not the same as saying he's familiar with the 23rd-century aesthetic; on the contrary, from evidence to date he seems downright uncomfortable with it.

...in Star Trek's case, we have two differences compared to other properties:
1) A Pre-ASO production whose original designs and sets were produced to a very low quality for production reasons
2) A prequel from the original production that is not itself a reboot.

I really think you're making too much of 2001: A Space Odyssey being some sort of revolutionary paradigm shift in SF design. Yes, the movie raised the bar for what could be achieved with special effects. But its designs were deliberately more "realistic" and near-future oriented (understandably enough), and haven't had much visible influence on later SF productions. Arguably it was Star Wars in 1977 that really had broader ripple effects.

The operative word in both cases is NOTICED. The Star Destroyers in Rogue One were updated significantly, as were the X-Wings and Y-Wings on Rogue one. Interesitngly, even the CG model of the Ghost -- which appears on screen for a grand total of 18 seconds -- had to be significantly re-textured and updated for the film since the original low-res model they used for the TV series wasn't nearly detailed enough for the big screen. This for a space craft design from a show that is still on the air.

Well, is a difference that's not noticeable really a difference? When a design is covered in meaningless greebles (like most things in Star Wars), minor differences are understandably harder to detect. OTOH, the new Enterprise in DSC has obvious and immediate visual differences from the original.

As for the Ghost, I literally have no idea what you're talking about — I have no idea what that ship is, and I wasn't aware that there was any kind of Star Wars property on television at all. (I've never been a huge SW fan.)

You didn't NOTICE alot of the changes in Rogue One and BSG because very little needed to be done to bring those textures up to date.

You're doing something that keeps happening a lot in these discussions, and conflating the way a design is realized on screen with the design itself. Updates to things like surface textures and lighting and resolution and visible details (like "window boxes") are just manifestations of advancing FX technology, and when done subtly and skillfully (which leaves out a lot of what we've seen in DSC... but I digress) can offer significant improvements to the look of an existing design without actually changing the design. ENT's "IAMD" did this with the Constitution-class Defiant, using state-of-the-art tech (as of 2005) very effectively to depict the original ship design. DSC changed the actual design. That's a whole different thing.

 

[Tuskin38]

OTOH, the new Enterprise in DSC has obvious and immediate visual differences from the original.

But is still very noticeably the Enterprise, that's the point.

They didn't 100% change it from the original. You should it to any casual fan and they'll recognize it.

 

[Jesse1066]

I really think you're making too much of 2001: A Space Odyssey being some sort of revolutionary paradigm shift in SF design. Yes, the movie raised the bar for what could be achieved with special effects. But its designs were deliberately more "realistic" and near-future oriented (understandably enough), and haven't had much visible influence on later SF productions. Arguably it was Star Wars in 1977 that really had broader ripple effects.

Mostly agreed. 2001 was a huge leap forward, perhaps even a paradigm shift since it set the tone for many of the spacecraft of seventies Sci fi with ships that are mostly non-aerodynamic (unless designed for atmospheric flight) and truly look like something NASA might build.
Star Wars bucked the trend with ships that were both more fantastical and more familiar due to similarities to such things as battleships and fighter planes. It was a huge paradigm shift and almost exclusively set the tone for eighties sci fi spacecraft. Plausibility was fundamental to 2001, coolness is fundamental to Star Wars.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Now you're the one who's ignoring what I've been saying. There's no reason TOS styling should dovetail with TMP (which came years later). There's no reason TOS styling should dovetail with ENT (which came over a century earlier... although it should have looked more primitive than it did). As for DSC, insofar as it presents a "design lineage" that seems out of sync with TOS, then that's a problem with DSC, not with the original show. We know what the 2250s and 2260s looked like in the Trek universe. If DSC's producers chose that setting, yet chose to put on screen a look that doesn't match that setting, then the fault is theirs.

TOS styling is outdated and looks old, it looked outdated and old in 1979, so they tossed it. The man who created the setting, tossed that styling himself. DSC is a modern show, made to attract new fans who are not 40+ years old. Making it looked like a cheap fan film, is not gonna do that. It is a modern show, not a cheap fan film man.

DSC is not the issue here, the issue is that dish does not fit the design they stapled it onto, nor the look of the show. The show has a set look, that dish does not match the look. So it is the problem.

(FWIW you also ignored my question about the uniforms in DSC. That wasn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious what you think of them... because IMHO they're more flagrantly anachronistic than anything from TOS.)

To be honest, I lost track of it in the back and forth. I log in, have like 6+ long posts to respond to and I miss one here or there. The Uniforms are not themselves in a retro style, they do however give off that vibe. But they do not stand out as they work with every other look on the show. Now they would be an issue if a single person showed up in an outdated TOS "uniform", he would stand out. But the uniforms themselves, while not what I would have done, work and fit well enough.

as always TOS is the odd man out here, it was the oddball, all other versions of trek have uniforms closer to what we see here, not a shirt and a pair of slacks,

Bottom line, for all the back-and-forth here, it comes down to this. You just don't like the visual aesthetic of the original Star Trek, and you're trying to rationalize that. For my part, I just don't like (most of) the visual aesthetic of DSC, and I'm trying to rationalize that. (Both of us should know better, because de gustibus non est disputandum, but we're doing it anyway.)

You are still not getting this. It is not about like or dislike. TOS is dated,looks old and looks freaking cheap. You can't just plop something from TOS into a modern show, it it does not work. I mean, if you edited something from DSC into TOs it would not work either. It would be too detailed, too clear, it would lack the haze that came with the filming gear they had. It would look liked a cheap and amateurish Photoshop

In this conflict, you have on your side current Hollywood design trends. I have on my side the entire history of Star Trek. I think that makes me the winner, pretty clearly. I'm sure you'll find some way to argue otherwise, however.

Trek changes its look every show. And it dropped the TOS style 40+ years ago like a bad ex.

 

[PixelMagic]

I don't make the design rules, I just have to follow them in my line of work.

 

[Tuskin38]

Trek changes its look every show.

because just like in real life, styling changes over time, every-time the look changed time had passed in-universe.

 

[Ithekro]

There appear to be people in Cage-style uniforms in the season finale back on Earth. Though most are in a grey-blue with black pants, and tend to be blurred because they are in the background....but they seem to make up maybe an eighth of the audience?

 

[Mirror Mirror]

That doesn't mean that it looks dated when most people look at it. And what about the nacelles is art deco anyway? If there is, then it was dated in '79 anyway, so what makes it more dated now?

1st off, art deco had a revival and was "In" during the 1970's. So it did not look dated so much as it was riding the current trend in the design world. Trek has always done this.
2nd, The shape and detail of the necelles. The combination of curve, lines and square shapes done in that way. Its very architectural Its hard for me to explain if you have never studied Art deco, but it stands out.

I love art deco, gods Do I love it. But its not longer in tend so it dates Art deco designs

Well, I guess when fins come back on cars they'll look dated, eh?

And sometimes, dated is good.

All in how its done, pure up 1950's style, yeah its gonna look dated. And folks custom cars to look that way sometimes. But that is not what we are talking about here.

What's with the condescension?

No condescension, confusion that some folks are not grasping something so simple and clear

 

[urbandefault]

People don't like the new E?

Dig up Matt Jefferies and put him back to work.

 

[Longinus]

I don't make the design rules, I just have to follow them in my line of work.

That must suck.

 

[lawman]

TOS styling is outdated and looks old, it looked outdated and old in 1979, so they tossed it. ... DSC is a modern show, made to attract new fans who are not 40+ years old. Making it looked like a cheap fan film, is not gonna do that. It is a modern show, not a cheap fan film man.

C'mon. Surely that straw man has been thoroughly knocked down, kicked around, and burned to ashes by now? Nobody wants something that looks like a fan film. Production value does not equal design.

Moreover, it seems pretty clear to me that DSC is targeted at least as much at pre-sold Trek fans as at new ones. (Just like the new Star Wars films, and countless other "revived" media properties in recent years.) And what does age have to do with it either way — do viewers 40+ have less money to spend or something?...

...as always TOS is the odd man out here, it was the oddball, all other versions of trek have uniforms closer to what we see here...
You are still not getting this. It is not about like or dislike. TOS is dated,looks old and looks freaking cheap..

You're the one who's not getting it. It is completely about subjective like or dislike. Indeed you've come right out and said in other threads that you just don't care for TOS, and it comes across in pretty much everything you post (e.g., the "odd man out" remark). There is no objective, empirical standard you can apply to say that it "is dated, looks old and looks freaking cheap." That's just your personal opinion. Others disagree, often pretty emphatically.

Heck, you probably disagree that Sean Connery was the best James Bond, too!...

 

[Mirror Mirror]

The NX was designed as a predecessor to the Connie which is why they share elements

Except it failed at that. It looks newer in very way and like it was made After, because it was.

No it isn’t. Why do you keep saying that? The NX’s deflector is exactly the same as the Connie’s except in shape

The Connie’s deflector would work better then the NX’s because it has a larger surface area.

No, it does not look the same. You keep saying that but it is false. Also the "Space age" design would look as silly and out of place on the NX as it does the new connie

 

[Tuskin38]

No, it does not look the same. You keep saying that but it is false.

You're blind

 

[PixelMagic]

And what does age have to do with it either way — do viewers 40+ have less money to spend or something?...

Because advertisers are specifically interested in people from 18-49, because they far and away spend the most money. The only advertisers that don't target this demo are Fox News because they know the majority of their viewers are 60+. CBS is also trying to appeal to younger people to bring them into the Trek fold because old fans won't always be around and they need to think about having a fanbase in the future.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

C'mon. Surely that straw man has been thoroughly knocked down, kicked around, and burned to ashes by now? Nobody wants something that looks like a fan film. Production value does not equal design.

Son, they resigned the ship from the ground up. They redesigned almost everything, even the Vulcans re less green. It was 3 to 5 years in setting. And yes, you are wnting it to look like a cheap fan film, the TOS design will always look that way , it lacks detail and its super dated.

You're blind

As are you,

 

[lawman]

Because advertisers are specifically interested in people from 18-49, because they far and away spend the most money. The only advertisers that don't target this demo are Fox News because they know the majority of their viewers are 60+. CBS is also trying to appeal to younger people to bring them into the Trek fold because old fans won't always be around and they need to think about having a fanbase in the future.

Sure, that's the business model for traditional television, where it's all driven by advertising, and the desire is to get the eyeballs of people with the most (disposable) income. I'd think that the business model(s) of direct-to-streaming shows would be somewhat different.

 

[Tuskin38]

As are you,