USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Belz...]

You could argue that the straight pylons are sleek and functional - if their job is to power the engine pods, they do exactly that.

I'm not talking about function but style.

For me I’d ask whether the retcon was necessary. In DSC continuity, yes because the prime Enterprise would look anachronistic next to the disco. The visual reboot was needed to make Enterprise stand out less alongside the new visuals.

Not just Discovery. The TOS Enterprise looks out of place everywhere except in TOS.

Does this mean that I think the prime design is dated just because it was designed in the 60s? Nope I love it

The question of whether something's dated has nothing to do with whether or not you love it. I love it too, and it's still dated.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

I'm not talking about function but style.



Not just Discovery. The TOS Enterprise looks out of place everywhere except in TOS.



The question of whether something's dated has nothing to do with whether or not you love it. I love it too, and it's still dated.

Fair points. Stylistically I’d argue that they’re sleek. And admittedly the look of ENT had the effect of making the prime Enterprise look somewhat out of place. And I’ll amend my final statement to say that in addition to loving it, I still don’t think the original Enterprise looks dated - she still looks as futuristic as she did in the 60s as far as I’m concerned

That being said, I understand why they changed the design to fit in with the DSC continuity.

 

[cooleddie74]

But those are ugly and boring!

Know who else thought they were ugly and boring?

Exactly.

 

[Mudd]

I think the HUD main viewer introduced in the Abrams films is a major improvement in production design - I'd like to see that kind of thinking carried through to more of Trek.

 

[Tuskin38]

Give it straight pylons,

Straight pylons were in Eaves’ final design but then the VFX team changed them for some reason.

 

[Ar-Pharazon]

no window viewscreen

The Pilot version had a visible window there. I figure they must have forgotten to mask it off when they repainted and it's still under there.

 

[cooleddie74]

Officially that rectangle on the outside of the bridge module in "The Cage" is a sensor pallette of some kind that feeds data to the viewscreen on the other side of the bulkhead, at least that's the explanation I've been hearing lately. As per John Eaves' original pylons I would have loved to see them.

At least these retain the little access hatches or portholes that the TOS pylons had, and in the same configuration.

 

[Ronald Held]

No reason for the Discoprise,except to try to sell new toys. The new design is not better or more modern or more functional.

 

[AlanC9]

No reason beyond fitting in better with the rest of DSC, you mean? Or is that a bug rather than a feature?

 

[Kor]

You could argue that the straight pylons are sleek and functional - if their job is to power the engine pods, they do exactly that.

The window seems logical in some situations (WoK) but illogical in others (battles where you’d feel awfully exposed if you were staring down a Klingon battlecruiser with nothing but a sheet of transparent aluminium between you and a photon torpedo - forgetting the illogic of putting the bridge on top of the ship, I always assumed there was a ton of extra shielding at the front of the bridge to protect it. A window seems like it’s harking back to the days of rocket ships rather than submarines in space).

For me I’d ask whether the retcon was necessary. In DSC continuity, yes because the prime Enterprise would look anachronistic next to the disco. The visual reboot was needed to make Enterprise stand out less alongside the new visuals.

Does this mean that I think the prime design is dated just because it was designed in the 60s? Nope I love it

I love it precisely because it was designed in the 60s.

I am a modernist design buff, and to me, the 1950s-1960s were the absolute pinnacle of visual design, and I loathe and detest anything that ever came before or after that era.

Kor

 

[Spaceship Jo]

I think the HUD main viewer introduced in the Abrams films is a major improvement in production design - I'd like to see that kind of thinking carried through to more of Trek.

I could take or leave a window. I get that for some it feels out of place, which it only does for me when they fly the camera through it too many times. They made that window HUD setup look good and useful in the Abrams films, even if only through implication. What I don't get are the generic sci-fi transparent displays for workstations. There's no sense of practicality to those, not even implied, just flash and flare to look cool on camera (like the barcode scanners? - I probably never would have noticed them if not for someone pointing them out to me). Not that there's anything wrong with just looking cool on camera, so long as it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief.

 

[Mudd]

I am a modernist design buff, and to me, the 1950s-1960s were the absolute pinnacle of visual design, and I loathe and detest anything that ever came before or after that era.

That's pretty silly as mid-century design didn't spring into being sui generis; it was an evolution of that which came before it. To admire the visual design of the 1950s and 60s while "loathing and detesting" the earlier works of Wright or Bauhaus artists, for example, is nonsensical.

 

[Kor]

That's pretty silly as mid-century design didn't spring into being sui generis; it was an evolution of that which came before it. To admire the visual design of the 1950s and 60s while "loathing and detesting" the earlier works of Wright or Bauhaus artists, for example, is nonsensical.

Then I'll clarify that I don't loathe the particular design lineages that precursed and directly led to the design types that I prefer.

Kor

 

[Jedman67]

I could take or leave a window. I get that for some it feels out of place, which it only does for me when they fly the camera through it too many times. They made that window HUD setup look good and useful in the Abrams films, even if only through implication. What I don't get are the generic sci-fi transparent displays for workstations. There's no sense of practicality to those, not even implied, just flash and flare to look cool on camera (like the barcode scanners? - I probably never would have noticed them if not for someone pointing them out to me). Not that there's anything wrong with just looking cool on camera, so long as it doesn't break my suspension of disbelief.

ST09 wasn't aimed at pandering to fans, it was designed, from the ground-up to bring modern visuals to an old franchise; the set design does look cool, even with the anachronistic barcode scanners pretending to be console lamps. It works, because you're supposed to see the consoles for roughly 2.5 seconds. A sleek and futuristic console fits the bill, even though many of us would prefer something closer to the jellybean switches of TOS or the LCARS of TNG.

 

[fireproof78]

ST09 wasn't aimed at pandering to fans, it was designed, from the ground-up to bring modern visuals to an old franchise; the set design does look cool, even with the anachronistic barcode scanners pretending to be console lamps. It works, because you're supposed to see the consoles for roughly 2.5 seconds. A sleek and futuristic console fits the bill, even though many of us would prefer something closer to the jellybean switches of TOS or the LCARS of TNG.

Well put. One of my favorite aspects of the 09 movie is the feeling that the bridge was really a command center, the hub of all the information around and in the ship.

 

[Belz...]

No reason for the Discoprise,except to try to sell new toys.

I guess you haven't read any of the thread until later this morning. We've addressed all that several times. There was a reason: the TOS ship looks dated to general audiences.

 

[Jedman67]

I guess you haven't read any of the thread until later this morning. We've addressed all that several times. There was a reason: the TOS ship looks dated to general audiences everyone.

FTFY

 

[lawman]

Because as mentioned before you can't sustain an expensive series with a core of longtime fans. It's the general audiences they want to go for.

As I've argued elsewhere, though, it doesn't need to be such an expensive series. $8m average per episode is kinda ridiculous. I'm willing to bet that neither The Expanse nor Lost in Space is that expensive — even though both of them look better on screen. If they did something a little less expensive, they could also do something with a little more creative integrity, rather than chasing after "general audiences." But that's just not CBS's way.

For that matter, if they really want to pour money into the show, how about doing it on the writing front? Hire some serious top-caliber storytellers. That would make a dramatic difference.

Except that it's a no-win scenario for them. If they make things different, fans complain. If they give more of the same, fans complain. The only way to win is to ignore the core fandom entirely.

False dichotomy. You seem to have some real disdain for fans here. I think by and large they only complain (at least in significant numbers) about things that deserve to be complained about. There's nothing wrong with having standards.

Moreover, the producers clearly aren't ignoring them. The show's concept and marketing are clearly intended to appeal to long-time fans. The problem is, they're going about that mostly in superficial ways, rather than in ways that would genuinely satisfy those fans.

Are you joking? Or do you seriously believe that it's like that?

The point is that it's more detailed, sleeker and... less 60s, I guess. The original was just too much of its time to be believable, especially to general audiences.

I don't want to rehash (lengthy) older discussion threads, but FWIW, I entirely concur with the post you responded to. There is nothing inherently "'60s" about the original Enterprise design, certainly not in any way that doesn't also apply to the DSC version. The original was already very detailed, and very sleek. Give it (perhaps) some chamfered edges at the pylon joins, and a little surface texturing, and the underlying design is good to go. There are countless online demos that demonstrate how true this is. The changes made for DSC seem mostly arbitrary.

Not just Discovery. The TOS Enterprise looks out of place everywhere except in TOS.

Sheer nonsense. It looks absolutely beautiful in TNG "Relics" and DS9 "Trials" and ENT "IAMD."

What is it with the windows that gets so many fans riled up?

A window viewscreen makes no sense, that's what. It adds literally nothing to the capabilities of the ship's sensors, or the visual information available to the bridge crew. Even the producers of the original show — in the 1960s! — understood this, which is why they explicitly said in the Writers' Guide that "the viewscreen is not a window." I remain convinced that the only reason the thing was introduced in the Abrams films (and then in DSC) was to allow those showy long-zoom FX shots where camera POV starts in space, then frames the crew in the window, then continues on into the ship.

 

[PixelMagic]

FTFY

Nah, not everyone. Some people are blinded by nostalgia goggles.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

There is nothing inherently "'60s" about the original Enterprise design,

I agree with your post entirely here. And the quoted point emphatically.

But... I wonder whether general audiences think the Enterprise is “dated” *because* it’s from the 60s? (I don’t know how we’d ever test that theory but what can you do).

I would hope that many trekkers would think she still looks futuristic because she was designed *not* to date - hence no rockets or illogical viewscreen windshield... but I guess to a muggle the prime Enterprise design may appear dated *only* because it’s old and because TOS is old.

Non trekkers should have to pass a course before they’re allowed to watch DSC... (people wouldn’t want to live in the Trek dictatorship I would create haha!)