USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Jadeb]

It also occurs to me that if we do imagine that some critical mass of the "general audience" is so narrowminded, for whatever quixotic reason — gotta be color, widescreen, CGI, HD, etc., etc!... — that it stands to reason another thing they'd disdain would be subtitles. So even if the goal were to cater to that crowd, certain creative choices on DSC would still stand out as inexplicable...

TBH, I have wondered if the production team isn't too fannish for its own good. They seem very worried about changing things outsiders might laugh at, as though still smarting from old taunts, even as they write the show for the most hardcore fans.
In fairness, I suspect even CBS is conflicted on this. They need the Trekkie dollars to keep All Access afloat, but, at the same time, they want all the other dollars too.

 

[fireproof78]

For that matter, does anyone think such tastes are rational? I haven't seen anyone here make such claims about themselves.)

Personal tastes rarely are rational.

 

[Belz...]

The only components that are EXACTLY the same are the deflector dish and part of the saucer rim. There are other similarities and there are many differences.

I would think you'd have added the bottom of the Shephard saucer. It's nearly identical to the central section of the Walker's top.

Okay, like I already said, I'll grant that such people exist. Sounds like lots of folks here are popping up to mention examples of one or two that they know. (Which is one or two more than I know, FWIW.)

But does anyone know a lot of them? Or think they're common? A critical mass, let alone a majority?

Is there a threshold at which point you'll admit that you're wrong about something?

 

[lawman]

Personal tastes rarely are rational.

They're usually at least explicable. I have a friend who hates musicals, for instance, but he can defend his reasons why (at length), and that's an exception to otherwise fairly catholic tastes.

In this case, OTOH, we're talking about people who would deliberately deprive themselves of a wide variety of material that's otherwise critically acclaimed and/or popular, just because of aspects of its presentation that are mostly just artifacts of when it was made. If a friend recommends a great restaurant that one hasn't been to before, who's gonna refuse to eat there just because the tables and chairs are old?

 

[Longinus]

Also, I like Nickelback.

Of course you do!

 

[lawman]

Is there a threshold at which point you'll admit that you're wrong about something?

Sure. I usually consider that to be the point at which I've been offered clear and convincing evidence of a contested proposition (although occasionally I'll reduce the standard to "preponderance of the evidence," or increase it to "beyond a reasonable doubt," depending on the context).

But what exactly is contested here? You said, "Look how many people avoid older (and by older, I mean recent, just not very recent) movies, series and video games," and I replied, "I suppose such people must exist, in the same way that, say, Scientologists or fans of Nickelback exist, but as to 'how many' I'd assume they're vanishingly rare."

You didn't specify exactly how common you think such people are (and I'm genuinely curious about that, as I asked in the post you just quoted), but you seem to think they're not especially rare—indeed, numerous enough to be the basis for generalizations about the tastes of typical viewers. None of the anecdotal examples adduced so far, however, demonstrate them to be anything but rare... nor is it even clear that other posters suppose them to be.

IOW, they do exist (as stipulated from the start), but their distribution in the population remains open to question.

 

[ITDUDE]

I had a classmate in highschool, like 8-9 years ago that would refuse to watch anything that wasn't widescreen.

I only watch things in original aspect ratio. I hate things "modified to fit your screen". Unfortunately half the movies shown on planes are still that.
I know it's not the same thing as your classmate, but I just wanted to stick in my 2 cents.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I personally know someone who won't watch black and white movies.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I would think you'd have added the bottom of the Shephard saucer. It's nearly identical to the central section of the Walker's top.

It's textured very differently, with window placement and hull panels rearranged, apparently to reflect the fact that it's on the bottom of the ship rather than the top. Also, for some reason that central core on the Walker is segmented slightly with a parabolic line through the middle. It kind of reminds me of the hull of the Normandy SR-1.

In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if the Normandy wasn't partially an inspiration for the Shenzhou after all. If you took the Normandy, fused it with a saucer section and turned its outboard engines into a warp nacelle, it might be pretty close. Hmmmm....

Is there a threshold at which point you'll admit that you're wrong about something?

Not directed at me, but it's a good question.

When something I believed to be true is confirmed not to be true by evidence. If I don't believe something is true or if I don't have any confidence in a guess being true, I say so.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

They're usually at least explicable.

ANYTHING is explicable if you're inventive enough. But just because you can invent a good reason to hate something doesn't mean your hatred is based on reasons.

If a friend recommends a great restaurant that one hasn't been to before, who's gonna refuse to eat there just because the tables and chairs are old?

Someone who has really strong opinions about restaurant chairs not being old? Who maybe believes it is a universal rule that all restaurants should follow that the tables and chairs should be brand new and impeccably clean, even if most people who go to restaurants don't really hold to this rule?

 

[Belz...]

Sure. I usually consider that to be the point at which I've been offered clear and convincing evidence of a contested proposition

It's only contested in that you refuse to accept it, because reasons. You've been given numerous examples from multiple sources and yet you change your standard of evidence constantly. That doesn't sound like someone open to correction.

But what exactly is contested here?

Nothing, except by you. That someone refuses to believe, for instance, that the Earth is roundish, doesn't make the Earth's shape a contested issue.

You didn't specify exactly how common you think such people are

That is completely irrelevant. The point is that TOS looks outdated even to many fans, and overwhelmingly to non-fans. If you want to revisit that era for general audiences, you need to update it.

It kind of reminds me of the hull of the Normandy SR-1.

Yeah, now that you mention it...

 

[fireproof78]

If a friend recommends a great restaurant that one hasn't been to before, who's gonna refuse to eat there just because the tables and chairs are old?

My brother, my wife, possibly my mom (depends on how old that we are talking about), and few other friends I know.

 

[lawman]

It's only contested in that you refuse to accept it, because reasons. You've been given numerous examples from multiple sources and yet you change your standard of evidence constantly. That doesn't sound like someone open to correction.

No, I haven't, and no, I haven't.

Do people with such peculiar tastes exist? I never denied it. The central question here is about the frequency of their distribution in the population, and (by extension) whether that frequency is sufficient enough to support generalizations about popular tastes.

An analogy: I think that anyone who thinks Donald Trump belongs in the Oval Office is certifiable. If I were to generalize based on my own circles of friends and colleagues I would also assume such people to be exceedingly rare, because my friends and colleagues are (by and large) sane, and (all joking aside) we tend to share certain political sensibilities. However, I don't make that generalization, because I know that such people exist in large numbers: a substantial minority of the population voted for Trump in 2016, and many of them still support him today in public opinion surveys.

You didn't make any specific claims about the number of people who insist on consuming Only!New! TV and movies and music and such, only asked the rhetorical question "do you know how many," but your intent was relatively clear: you think it's some critical mass of the population. I think that's unlikely. Other posters here have offered up individual examples (although none have offered themselves as examples), and I have reacted with incredulity insofar as I just can't imagine why anyone would think that way (I am similarly incredulous about Trump supporters), but I haven't contested the basic point that such people exist.

However, the examples at hand are hardly sufficient to settle the question of whether they exist in numbers comparable to (e.g.) Trump supporters.

It seems to me reasonable to suppose that if such tastes were so commonplace as to be dominant, that would preclude the possibility of material outside that narrow range from having a viable presence in the entertainment market. (Indeed, that seems to be the upshot of your original rhetorical question. If not, by all means please clarify.) However, we do not observe that outcome to be the case. In fact, we observe the exact opposite. Old!Stuff! is incredibly widespread in the consumer marketplace, in a variety of media and formats, as is ancillary merchandise associated with such stuff. On any night of the week in any part of the country, you can enjoy a classic black and white movie (or even a silent one!), or a song originally recorded on a vinyl 78, or a TV show produced in the 1950s. You can buy or download video games (or emulations thereof) that were popular decades ago. You can do most of this at the click of a button; if you prefer physical media, you can do it by visiting a local store. In any town of reasonable size, you can do it with large numbers of other people — watching such a movie on a big screen in a revival house, or dancing to such a song on a real dance floor, or having drinks at a bar that specializes in vintage TV shows, or playing at an arcade that specializes in vintage games. You can go participate in public trivia games that rely on in-depth knowledge of such things. You can shop at collectors' shops that sell vintage memorabilia, or regular retailers that sell brand new memorabilia of much of the same stuff.

(And let's not even get started on the market for vintage cars, and toys, and sports equipment, and other things further afield from entertainment.)

Short of scientifically conducted surveys, I think that adds up to fairly compelling evidence. Long story short, Old!Stuff! is widely available and incredibly popular. I have no doubt that some people do in fact disdain it (and probably quite a lot more people are merely indifferent to it). However, there are nowhere near enough of them to keep it from being marketable.

FWIW, my circles of friends and acquaintances exemplify this diversity of tastes. I feel kinda sorry for anyone for whom that's not true.

That is completely irrelevant. The point is that TOS looks outdated even to many fans, and overwhelmingly to non-fans. If you want to revisit that era for general audiences, you need to update it.

That's a bold proposition, and the evidence at hand really doesn't support it.

Moreover, even if people with the kinds of tastes you describe did dominate the market, that still wouldn't really support this point, because the distinctions you're talking about are all about technical details of presentation (production values like CGI quality, etc.), not the content of the thing being presented (designs), and as @Jadeb upthread is merely the latest to point out, those are not the same thing.

After all, nobody's saying DSC should be produced and delivered like a '60s TV show (4:3 ratio, 480i, flat lighting, handmade props, practical FX, static matte paintings, mono sound, etc.). It's not that any of those things actually make Old!Stuff! unwatchable (of course not!), even if a few people disdain them, but since we do have more sophisticated technology now, there's no reason not to use it. When we're talking about classic designs, though, we're talking about the content that technology is used to deliver. Those looked good then, and if anything look better now when recreated with better tech.

In a nutshell: there is nothing about the Enterprise having a bridge window or extra nacelle fins that is intrinsic to the production values used, or that looks any more or less "outdated" than the original design, or is any more appealing to "general audiences." Tastes in design are more individual and quixotic than that. As @fireproof78 demonstrates, for instance, even a design that virtually everyone agrees is timeless (the TMP refit Enterprise, which the DSC redesign conspicuously resembles) won't literally please everyone (e.g., his wife).

If a friend recommends a great restaurant that one hasn't been to before, who's gonna refuse to eat there just because the tables and chairs are old?

My brother, my wife, possibly my mom (depends on how old that we are talking about), and few other friends I know.

They must find restaurant reviews very frustrating, then! All those ever talk about are the food.

 

[Mudd]

I personally know someone who won't watch black and white movies.

That's pathetic.

 

[Belz...]

No, I haven't, and no, I haven't.

And yet you do it in the very next sentence:

Do people with such peculiar tastes exist?

Nobody said anything about peculiar tastes. You're moving the goalposts over and over and over.

If you're not going to discuss this honestly, there's no point in engaging with you.

 

[lawman]

Oh, c'mon, there's no goalpost-moving there at all. If you don't think "peculiar" is a decent one-word summary of tastes that "avoid older (and by older, I mean recent, just not very recent) movies, series and video games just because the graphics or whatever aren't as good as what we have today," as you put it, I can't imagine why not, but regardless, I'm open to alternative adjectives, as that one isn't in any way important to the argument I lay out.

 

[fireproof78]

They must find restaurant reviews very frustrating, then! All those ever talk about are the food.

Hardly their metric, and hardly their experience either. My mom and wife are both trained in food handling and health, so their standards are pretty high. Restaurant reviews are not their way of identifying new places to eat.

Oh, c'mon, there's no goalpost-moving there at all. If you don't think "peculiar" is a decent one-word summary of tastes that "avoid older (and by older, I mean recent, just not very recent) movies, series and video games just because the graphics or whatever aren't as good as what we have today," as you put it, I can't imagine why not, but regardless, I'm open to alternative adjectives, as that one isn't in any way important to the argument I lay out.

Selective.

 

[lawman]

Special case there with the mom and wife, then! All joking aside, I'd imagine they'd be more interested in the state of the kitchen than the age of the dining room furniture, but whatever. (And how do they identify new places to eat?)

As for "selective," that's a perfectly good substitute word. I have no objections to it whatsoever, and hopefully neither does @Belz... . The rest of the post remains as written.

 

[fireproof78]

Special case there with the mom and wife, then! All joking aside, I'd imagine they'd be more interested in the state of the kitchen than the age of the dining room furniture, but whatever. (And how do they identify new places to eat?)

My wife really can't due to health conditions. My mom goes on the basis of friend recommendations, but she is not adverse to walking in and walking right back out.

 

[Mudd]

Oh, c'mon, there's no goalpost-moving there at all. If you don't think "peculiar" is a decent one-word summary of tastes that "avoid older (and by older, I mean recent, just not very recent) movies, series and video games just because the graphics or whatever aren't as good as what we have today," as you put it, I can't imagine why not, but regardless, I'm open to alternative adjectives, as that one isn't in any way important to the argument I lay out.

Well, "dumb" works in that context.