USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Crazy Eddie]

When MirrorMirror keeps talking about what's "in trend," he's talking about what people who are trained in design and do it professionally for TV and movie studios think of as trendy — or, at least, what their bosses and clients think of as trendy. Unless they're mind-readers...

... or unless they have done literally ANY amount of market research into their target audience, or have any experience with audience reactions to past products, or have any background in graphic art and design sufficient to gauge what is and isn't well received by the people who will be the end consumers of this media?

Unless they actually know what they're doing?

It's super easy to tell people that they are failing at something you have no idea how to do yourself. I hate to be "that guy" but how many major television franchises have YOU done design work for?

I don't grasp your logic here at all. You're basically saying that old Star Trek, the stuff that made us love it in the first place, just isn't enough

That's a weird way of putting it... was the first season of TOS not enough for you? Why did they bother making two additional seasons, even when half of the episodes in them kind of sucked? Why did they bother making TNG, as if TOS and the movies weren't good enough? Why did they make DS9 and Voyager? TNG wasn't enough?

Better question: why do all of your arguments ultimately reduce to "I don't like change"?

First of all, as apparently it's necessary to keep repeating this on a regular basis, there is a difference between designs on the one hand, and production values (including special effects) on the other. Sophisticated designs can be executed cheaply, and slapdash designs can be executed at great expense. (I'd argue that DSC is all too often an example of the latter.)

As are half the set designs in TNG+ and Enterprise. OTOH, TOS is a clear example of the former. They were very complex designs that had to be simplified into much cheaper sets than Rodenberry would have preferred. The moment they gave him access to a budget to do something more ambitious, the result was the TMP bridge.

Second, as is also apparently necessary to repeat in contrast to popular myth, the original Star Trek was not produced cheaply. Its first-season budget was $190k/episode, roughly $1.4m in current dollars...

Compare with DS9 and TNG, which blew through one to two million dollars PER EPISODE.

Compare with Babylon 5, which had to keep it down to $800,000 per episode, and is ALSO notable for having relatively cheap-looking but well-designed sets.

Star Trek was impressive for its time, but it wasn't because they had a lot of resources to work with. If TOS had had ANYTHING like the kind of budget that its successors had, it would have looked very, VERY different.

Sigh. We're talking about continuity here...

... or so Star Trek fans like to think since it facilitates the need for escapism.

To be clear: you're talking about continuity of storytelling. Star Trek is an anomaly in television scifi because it spent over two decades being managed by the same creative team who worked carefully to be consistent with themselves. TNG and the spinoffs became a sort of televised Expanded Universe that all tied in together, with background and lore projected both backwards and forwards through a fictional continuity. That "expanded universe" came to be known as the "Prime Timeline" and it's been expected that all future productions will be part of that universe.

That new creative teams come to the table to make new productions means they have to have respect for what the old team created as far as creative impulses (so photon torpedoes aren't nuclear-tipped ICBMs and phasers aren't just handguns with electrified bullets or something), but just because you RESPECT previous artists doesn't mean you have to incorporate their work into yours. Especially in the case where some of the choices those artists made were driven more by necessity than by deliberate choice. The set designs of TOS are definitely examples of the former.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Wait, aren't there already two or three totally different sizes of identical Maquis raider already? Maybe one of them fits that Voyager hull

Just got an image in my head of a Voyager saucer standing in front of a mirror trying on three different engineering sections to see which one fits...

 

[Prax]

TOS had a comparable budget to TNG

 

[Crazy Eddie]

TOS had a comparable budget to TNG

Not adjusted for inflation. TNG's average per-episode budget would be about $3.5 million in 2018. TOS's most expensive episodes never got even close to that; "City on the Edge of Forever," the most expensive episode of the entire original series, cost $250,396 and was massively overbudget, and would be $1.9 million in 2018 greenbacks. Most other TOS episodes were far cheaper.

And this is just the cost per episode, NOT the cost of sets. The original Star Trek was an untried, untested property in a niche genre that studios had trouble taking seriously and had to build all of its sets completely from scratch. TNG recycled motion-picture quality sets AND models, many of which were still in pretty good shape and could be adapted for television with only cosmetic changes (e.g. the Battle bridge, sickbay, the corridors, the transporter room). The Engine room and the main bridge were the most ambitious things they built in TNG, the rest was almost all recycled and redressed from the TMP movies (as were quite a few of the props and costumes).

In other words, TNG had more money AND more resources to start with. In that sense, TOS is only really comparable to Discovery, which is the first series in almost 30 years that had to build brand new sets from scratch.

 

[Prax]

The cage cost $650,000.

Also, DS9 & Enterprise didn't use redresses, but built all new sets, and I bet Voyager's pilot(at 23 million) cost more than Discovery's.

TNG was working on a tight budget for what they were trying to do, compared to DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise(or at least before ENT's budget was dramatically cut).

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The cage cost $650,000.

Also, DS9 & Enterprise didn't use redresses, but built all new sets

Partially. The bridge of the Saratoga and most of the guest starships was a redress of the Battle Bridge. The Runabout was new, but for some reason they didn't retain the crew lounge and it only got featured on that one TNG episode.

I also had the impression that Enterprise' bridge had been converted from the original Defiant set as had some of the interiors, but I might be misremembering that. As it stands, the Defiant bridge was redressed a number of times on Voyager, as was the venerable Battle Bridge set.

I bet Voyager's pilot(at 23 million) cost more than Discovery's.

I somehow kind of doubt it.

TNG was working on a tight budget for what they were trying to do, compared to DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise(or at least before ENT's budget was dramatically cut).

Quite true, but they still had two to three times the resources AND the funding that TOS had, in a genre that -- post Star Wars -- was far more likely to be taken seriously by studio execs.

 

[Saul]

Enterprise didn't use redresses,

The Enterprise Bridge seemed like a rebuild of the Defiant Bridge and the NX engine room looked like the set from the Voyager episode 'Workforce'.

The Gagarin is my favorite Discovery ship as well.

And mine!

 

[Gepard]

The NX bridge set on Enterprise was an all-new set. The Defiant bridge was retained after DS9 wrapped, but with the intent of redressing it as various alien bridges.

The old Star Trek: The Magazine had an article about it.

 

[lawman]

Unless they actually know what they're doing?

Yeah, that's way more than I'm willing to stipulate when it comes to Hollywood. Years of experience as an audience member (and countless behind-the-scenes stories) tell me that the creative decision-making process is all too often akin to throwing darts at a wall.

I mean, next you're gonna tell me that investment advisers actually know how to beat the market over time?...

What's more, there's no reason any of us should actually want creative decisions to be driven by market research, because all that'll give us is derivative stuff... efforts to imitate some other thing that was unexpectedly popular because it was actually innovative. I prefer material driven by a sense of creative integrity.

Better question: why do all of your arguments ultimately reduce to "I don't like change"?

Straw man. You're caricaturing me rather than actually responding to my real argument(s). I have no problem with change in creative properties, per se; I do my best to judge things on their merits, according to criteria I'm always happy to discuss. My favorite Trek series behind TOS is DS9, which changed up a whole lot of things.

I do tend to be skeptical about gratuitous change, though, especially when creators try to leverage audience affection for something familiar (by, say, doing a prequel in a familiar setting), but then change up the things that made it familiar in the first place. The changed material has to be Really Damned Good to overcome the sour taste that leaves.

I wish DSC had been Really Damned Good. But for a whole host of reasons (and its ship designs are by no means at the top of the list), it't not.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Yeah, that's way more than I'm willing to stipulate when it comes to Hollywood. Years of experience as an audience member...

Amazing!

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Wait, aren't there already two or three totally different sizes of identical Maquis raider already? Maybe one of them fits that Voyager hull

60 meter and a smaller one. This one is like 300 meters

 

[Longinus]

Unless they actually know what they're doing?

Okay, let's be real here, the people who are making this show obviously don't know what they're doing. Granted, the incoherent art direction is the least of the problems in that regard.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Okay, let's be real here, the people who are making this show obviously don't know what they're doing. Granted, the incoherent art direction is the least of the problems in that regard.

The amount of hidden Easter eggs show they know what they are doing more than outraged "fans" who want it it fail. Most of those so called fans never even catch the hidden gems. The fact you dislike the art direction, does not mean it was bad or poor. It simply means you do not like it.

 

[lawman]

Easter eggs count for nothing. To quote the poster Wowbagger from the thread about changes for Season 2:

...I think Disco is much worse about it than even Abrams. (Perhaps because of its insistence that it is set in the Prime Universe.) Yes, we can all see the tribble on Lorca's desk, and we're able to notice the nod to Hoshi Sato in Empress Georgiou's imperial title. But having a computer listing off captains for Saru isn't continuity; it's a fan handjob (a "fanjob"?). Meanwhile, Discovery is mutilating the very core of Sarek's character and doesn't understand why we're grumpy. [Trying] to mollify the [fans] while doing something entirely different. ... That's pretty much how I envision the executive producers of Discovery.

Wowbagger also cites this incredibly insightful essay by literature scholar Erin Horakova, in which among many other keen observations she remarks (regarding the Abrams films, but it also applies to DSC)...

"Bullshit easter eggs aside*, the new Star Trek films are not for people who like Star Trek. They are spectacularly bad at delivering the essence of Star Trek: that universe, those characters. They are aimed at people who recognise the line 'beam me up, Scotty' and sweet Fanny Adams else. Even the TOS films cater to people’s sense of recognition, and making them 'feel like fans' without much of the playbour of having to become familiar with the canon. These pre-packaged elements also give casual viewers the satisfying sense of a bona-fide Star Trek Experience: if McCoy hasn’t told you he’s a doctor, Jim, not a wand'ring minstrel, have you truly seen a Star Trek film at all? Time and distance from the source material have only exacerbated these effects. ...
"*I want to throttle whoever’s dumbass idea it was to gamify continuity, trading the sense of a stable world necessary for the development of emotional and thematic through-lines for a facile 'spot the reference' game intended to glut media consumers with smug, masturbatory self-satisfaction because they can recognise tribbles or whatever."​

 

[Longinus]

The fact you dislike the art direction, does not mean it was bad or poor. It simply means you do not like it.

I want everyone to take a moment to appreciate the irony.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I want everyone to take a moment to appreciate the irony.

We are not talking stylings, we are talking personal taste. Not the same thing. You once more, with a cliamed art degree, should know this

 

[Longinus]

We are not talking stylings, we are talking personal taste. Not the same thing. You once more, with a cliamed art degree, should know this

I indeed do. Which is why I called DIS art direction 'incoherent'; because it is. It is a mishmash of different styles without coherent overall vision. Even you noted this in your dislike of the retro elements that 'do not belong.' Now, on what style they should focus on, is a matter of taste. You think they should try to be as contemporary as possible (which they aren't) and I say they should totally embrace the retro style (which they aren't doing either.)

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I indeed do. Which is why I called DIS art direction 'incoherent'; because it is. It is a mishmash of different styles without coherent overall vision. Even you noted this in your dislike of the retro elements that 'do not belong.' Now, on what style they should focus on, is a matter of taste. You think they should try to be as contemporary as possible (which they aren't) and I say they should totally embrace the retro style (which they aren't doing either.)

I pointed out a single instance of it, due to pandering. Other than the connie, the art direction is consistent

 

[Ovation]

Easter eggs count for nothing. To quote the poster Wowbagger from the thread about changes for Season 2:


Wowbagger also cites this incredibly insightful essay by literature scholar Erin Horakova, in which among many other keen observations she remarks (regarding the Abrams films, but it also applies to DSC)...

"Bullshit easter eggs aside*, the new Star Trek films are not for people who like Star Trek. They are spectacularly bad at delivering the essence of Star Trek: that universe, those characters. They are aimed at people who recognise the line 'beam me up, Scotty' and sweet Fanny Adams else. Even the TOS films cater to people’s sense of recognition, and making them 'feel like fans' without much of the playbour of having to become familiar with the canon. These pre-packaged elements also give casual viewers the satisfying sense of a bona-fide Star Trek Experience: if McCoy hasn’t told you he’s a doctor, Jim, not a wand'ring minstrel, have you truly seen a Star Trek film at all? Time and distance from the source material have only exacerbated these effects. ...
"*I want to throttle whoever’s dumbass idea it was to gamify continuity, trading the sense of a stable world necessary for the development of emotional and thematic through-lines for a facile 'spot the reference' game intended to glut media consumers with smug, masturbatory self-satisfaction because they can recognise tribbles or whatever."​

“Literature scholar Erin Horakova” is...full of shit. I have been a fan of Trek since I saw my first episode as a six year old in 1973 on WLVI Ch. 56 in Boston. I’ve seen EVERY episode of every Trek series (anywhere from twice for DSC to 100+ times for some TOS) and ALL the movies. I’ve read at least 200 Trek novels, at least as many Trek comics and I’ve got games, calendars, clothes and other memorabilia. And the Abrams films—Into Darkness and Trek 09 (in that order)—are my top two favourite Trek films. Also, DSC is currently third on my list for favourite series and could overtake ENT as my second favourite.

Self-styled “fan police”, such as Erin Horakova, really PISS ME OFF!!! That she doesn’t like some iteration of Trek...great. No one has to like any particular one. That she appoints herself “judge” to decide if any particular iteration is “true Trek”? Fuck that noise.

 

[lawman]

So, obviously, you didn't actually click the link and read any of her blog post. Instead you mischaracterized and categorically dismissed her just because you disagreed with something in my pullquote.

(FWIW, the central thrust of the piece is about "Kirk drift"... the way the presentation of him in the Abrams films, as rash, impulsive, and a womanizer, is based far more on a pop-culture caricature of Kirk than on anything about how he was originally depicted. She leverages detailed examples on behalf of that argument, and she's pretty much inarguably right about it.)