"Enterprise" too advanced for 22nd Century

[Christopher]

Also, I think there's a bit of a difference here. In "Relics" they hired the original actor who played the original character, so when he went on the holodeck wanting to look at his original ship, it made sense that they'd design it to be the same.

No, it doesn't. TMP had the same actors as TOS, and they still redesigned everything. Heck, TNG redesigned Worf's actual forehead between season 1 & 2. So it doesn't have a thing to do with who the actors are. As I've already explained, they had to use the same design for budgetary reasons. They couldn't afford to build a whole bridge set, so they had to fake it using stock footage and rented fan reconstructions. They didn't have the option to do it any other way.

What a lot of laypeople tend to forget is that making this stuff is expensive. Most of the time, the fundamental reason why a decision was made is going to come down to money rather than pure creativity.

However I wish there be a bit more consistency. I noted earlier I thought Enterprise did a pretty good job with the set design striking a balance between making it less advanced then the NCC-1701, but still look futuristic from our standpoint. It seemed at least to me with Discovery that they abandoned any attempt to strike that balance.

I will never understand why anyone is surprised that completely different creative teams have made different creative decisions. Or that a show that was meant to relaunch a dormant franchise has actually relaunched it, taken a new and fresh approach rather than just perpetuating what the previous generation did. People just got spoiled by having a single continuous incarnation of Trek produced by the same people for 18 years. They came to think that kind of uniformity was the norm rather than an exception.

 

[Damian]

No, it doesn't. TMP had the same actors as TOS, and they still redesigned everything.

But Scotty was pining for his old ship. He stated he wanted the original Enterprise he served on. I get the budgetary reason, but storywise he wanted to see the original incarnation of his original ship. My point is with that in mind it wouldn't make sense to redesign that even if you had the money. It was a purely nostalgic scene all around.

After all, if the purpose of the scene wasn't for nostalgic-sentimental reason, they didn't have to film the scene at all.

I will never understand why anyone is surprised that completely different creative teams have made different creative decisions. Or that a show that was meant to relaunch a dormant franchise has actually relaunched it, taken a new and fresh approach rather than just perpetuating what the previous generation did. People just got spoiled by having a single continuous incarnation of Trek produced by the same people for 18 years. They came to think that kind of uniformity was the norm rather than an exception

I don't necessarily agree. I don't have an issue with new designers coming in with their own spin on things. But there's nothing wrong with taking into consideration past practices as it were. I actually liked Herman Zimmerman and his team's designs because they did do that. They created things on their own of course, but they always kept past practices in mind, I felt in a thoughtful and balanced way. They never felt the need to just start from scratch. I thought Enterprise was the best example of that balance. I think the new designers went a bit too far in their redesigns and changed things around just for the sake of change. And I know technobabble gets a lot of criticism (some valid, I'll admit), but that's not the designers fault, they don't write dialogue. But I always appreciated that the designers tried to put some thought into their designs. Why does a thing work the way it does, why is this EPS conduit in this location, even if it never shows up in dialogue, there was a purpose, adding some science, or at least scientific thinking, to their design. I don't think the designers of Abramsverse Trek or Discovery really think about those sort of things. It's just, let's put this here because it looks cool, not for any purpose (like the window on the bridge).

That's one of my major issues with new Star Trek vs. older Trek designs. That's what always separated Star Trek from things like Star Wars. I'm not bashing Star Wars--it's a space opera. Lucas will tell you himself the science is not really important for Star Wars. It's a fantasy and not really science fiction. I sort of feel the current powers that be are trying to take Star Trek in that direction and I'd rather they didn't.

 

[Christopher]

My point is with that in mind it wouldn't make sense to redesign that even if you had the money. It was a purely nostalgic scene all around.

If they'd had the money, they'd probably have gone with an updated design that resembled the original aesthetically but was not an exact copy on a detail level, or that blended elements from the TOS and TMP designs, like the Discovery version of the Enterprise. Something that suggested that the original look was just an approximation of the real thing. Homage does not require exact duplication.

I mean, look at how they approach alien makeups. Look at ENT's Andorians and Tellarites, or DSC's versions of same. The basics remained the same -- Andorians as blue-skinned, white-haired, and antennaed, Tellarites with porcine snouts and sunken eyes -- but the details of how those fundamentals were executed got changed. That's how you pay homage to the past while still updating it. It's not like the only choices are exact imitation or complete novelty. There's always middle ground, which is why it's always unwise to reduce any question to a black-and-white binary.

But there's nothing wrong with taking into consideration past practices as it were.

There's nothing wrong with not doing it either! That's the point. Different creators make their own choices, and they have every right to do so. Whether you like it or not is up to you, but you can't expect every creator to conform to your personal preferences.

 

[Damian]

There's nothing wrong with not doing it either! That's the point. Different creators make their own choices, and they have every right to do so. Whether you like it or not is up to you, but you can't expect every creator to conform to your personal preferences.

No, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about it

And to be honest, if the story is good enough it will win me over. Production design is just one of the things I look at. I like a balanced approach, a little new, a little old, something blue...well, you know. But then I'm a bit "old" school. I like steadicams, clean, crisp shots. The movie/TV going public these days seem to like a documentary like approach with shakey, vertiginous shots, lens flares, gritty camerawork that looks like shots were taken during an earthquake.

Also, while the new creators have every 'right' to do as they see fit, it still behooves them to take account of the fans. After all, we're customers. If a lot of fans were complaining about the set design, just as an example, it wouldn't be wise for them to ignore that. Now I'll admit, I'm probably in the minority on my set design preferences. That's life I guess, and I don't really expect the designers to conform to what I want. But if they were getting a bunch of complaints and the ratings were poor, it'd probably be something they'd want to consider looking at.

One thing I did appreciate about the Abrams teams is they did listen to the fans when doing STID and Beyond. Not slavishly so and not on every point. But where it made some sense and fit with the story. There was a lot about the 'rapid fire' promotions and the writers indicated that was something they considered when writing STID. And they did it in such a way that it added to the story. Also there was a lot of comments about Scotty not being turned into just an odious comic relief character after Star Trek (2009), and in STID and esp. Beyond, he became much more. I think the Discovery team would be wise to take a similar philosophy. We fans can be fickle, and we can cry and moan sometimes. But on occasion we've been known to bring up a good point

 

[uniderth]

I'm pretty sure ENT was the first series to actually show a Klingon subject race, but of course they did nothing with it.

Sorry, Star Trek beat you to it with Organia. While it only lasted one episode, they were a subject world.

 

[Christopher]

And to be honest, if the story is good enough it will win me over. Production design is just one of the things I look at. I like a balanced approach, a little new, a little old, something blue...well, you know. But then I'm a bit "old" school. I like steadicams, clean, crisp shots. The movie/TV going public these days seem to like a documentary like approach with shakey, vertiginous shots, lens flares, gritty camerawork that looks like shots were taken during an earthquake.

Wow, you are old school, since that sort of thing's been trendy for a generation now, since at least the early '90s. That's 25-30 years. It's kind of disingenuous to talk about it as some kind of novelty at this point. If anything, I think it's less commonplace now than it was back then.

Also, while the new creators have every 'right' to do as they see fit, it still behooves them to take account of the fans. After all, we're customers. If a lot of fans were complaining about the set design, just as an example, it wouldn't be wise for them to ignore that.

Yeah, but the gripers always overestimate how large a percentage of the fanbase they really are. As a rule, they're far, far less important as tastemakers than they imagine themselves to be. Like all the Abrams-bashers who insisted that the Kelvin films were universally loathed even as they broke box-office records for Star Trek films.

Purists always forget that they're not the target audience of a new adaptation. There's no point in extending the franchise to include something new if it's not meant to bring in a new audience. Too much nostalgia defeats the purpose of reinventing a work of fiction for a new generation.

One thing I did appreciate about the Abrams teams is they did listen to the fans when doing STID and Beyond. Not slavishly so and not on every point. But where it made some sense and fit with the story. There was a lot about the 'rapid fire' promotions and the writers indicated that was something they considered when writing STID. And they did it in such a way that it added to the story.

But that had nothing to do with nostalgia or change from past continuity. That was a genuine, objective flaw in the story, a logic hole that woul be just as recognizable to people who'd never seen a Star Trek story before in their lives. That's infinitely more important than whether the console buttons beep the right way.

 

[Damian]

Wow, you are old school, since that sort of thing's been trendy for a generation now, since at least the early '90s. That's 25-30 years. It's kind of disingenuous to talk about it as some kind of novelty at this point. If anything, I think it's less commonplace now than it was back then.

Yeah, that's my point. Today a lot of films have that documentary feel to it. It's not something I care for. I go to movies to escape reality for a bit. Star Trek has become that in a lot of ways---though in STID and Beyond it was a bit more subdued. Star Trek (2009) gave me a headache when I saw it in the theater. At least STID and Beyond didn't.

And there are still some films today made in a more 'traditional' fashion. I always enjoyed Paul Thomas Anderson movies partly because his filmmaking style, and the stories themselves.

Yeah, but the gripers always overestimate how large a percentage of the fanbase they really are. As a rule, they're far, far less important as tastemakers than they imagine themselves to be. Like all the Abrams-bashers who insisted that the Kelvin films were universally loathed even as they broke box-office records for Star Trek films

True. I have no problems complaining of course. But I'm well aware of my lack of importance in the grand scheme of things. I'm simply one fan. Even when some people happen to agree with me, I know that's still pretty insignificant. It only comes into play if you hear about it a lot AND ratings are plummeting, where you have a cause and effect. Say, just for the fun of it, that people in general were panning the new Klingon design and ratings fell. In that case the show runners would probably want to consider making some changes. But yeah, if some of us are complaining about it and ratings are going up, then it's just my problem.

But that had nothing to do with nostalgia or change from past continuity. That was a genuine, objective flaw in the story, a logic hole that woul be just as recognizable to people who'd never seen a Star Trek story before in their lives. That's infinitely more important than whether the console buttons beep the right way.

Right. But there were some other things. For instance there was a lot of griping about the engine room in Star Trek (2009), esp. the lack of a warp core. In STID they went out of there way to point out the warp core--here it is--pow. It's not the warp core I'd envision...but I didn't complain about it because I saw that they were listening and made certain adjustments, and in such a way that it didn't affect their overall story. Now Discovery may very well do some of the same things, it's too early to say at this point. I think it all depends. Is there something a lot of people are commenting on in different forums? Does it make sense to take that into consideration? Does it fit the story? I thought the Abrams team did a pretty good job of that in STID and Beyond. I like balance, if you haven't noticed. And I thought they did a good job balancing some of those sorts of things with the story they wanted to tell and how they wanted to portray it.

 

[Christopher]

Yeah, that's my point. Today a lot of films have that documentary feel to it.

I don't think you read what I said. That verite feel is less common today than it was 20-25 years ago. Back then, a generation ago, it was a novelty and filmmakers embraced it widely. These days, it's just one long-established tool in the box, rather than a current or recent fashion. There are plenty of shows and films that favor a more traditional approach.

Right. But there were some other things. For instance there was a lot of griping about the engine room in Star Trek (2009), esp. the lack of a warp core.

"A lot" is subjective. What seems like "a lot of griping" to people on an online forum is usually just a handful of very loud and persistent people, statistically insignificant on the grand scale of things. As Keith DeCandido likes to say, "Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend."

Again: It is not the point of a reboot of a series to cater exclusively to the old fans. The purpose is to attract new fans, people who don't know or care what the freaking engine room looked like in the past. Yes, sure, it helps to make it satisfying to both old and new fans, but bringing in new blood is the more important priority.

And what do you mean "lack of a warp core?" The Enterprise in ST'09 was clearly shown to have multiple warp cores, which were jettisoned into the black hole at the end to create the explosion that pushed the ship away and saved it. The cores were an actual, important plot point.

 

[Damian]

Well, it seems a lot of action, sci-fi films employ that documentary feel to it today. But yes, at least in Star Trek's case it's been modified a bit.

I never really cared for that us or them idea. That for some reason current Star Trek producers can't satisfy both old fans and bring in new fans. Why does it have to be that way? Some fans will never be satisfied, true. But there are plenty, like myself, who are open-minded. Don't mistaken my criticisms for some sort of folding my arms and saying I won't give it a chance. TMP is my favorite Star Trek film, but there are still certain things I criticize it for. In a bizarre certain way I only critique things I like anyway. If I don't like it I ignore it. I'm not saying you're saying they should ignore old fans. It's just this idea that some people have that the new show runners should just tell old fans to sort of go away, we don't need you here.

The criticism of Star Trek's engine room was that in all previous Starship designs there was a clear warp core at the center of all the ships function, which was not really depicted well in Star Trek (2009). I mean, even someone that never knew a thing about Star Trek, when they showed the engine room, you knew that was the heart of the ship. Not so in Star Trek (2009). Not to mention other issues, like the factory feel to it and the dirt and grime in some areas. I know some criticize Zimmerman's set designs in the past for being sterile and clean. I never understood that. I mean, you're in a space ship, in space. You'd want it to be spotless for numerous reasons, bacterial, viruses, you're IN SPACE in a confined environment. Things like that.

 

[Mytran]

Obviously it didn't, because Kelvin and DSC have both been totally free to change the look. It's not a stranglehold if you can break it at will. All it did was put some overly literal-minded fans' imaginations in a stranglehold. And fans have got to stop being so arrogant as to assume they have the power to dictate the form the actual shows and films take.

Uh, OK...except that both Trials & Tribbleations and In A Mirror Darkly blatantly came later than Relics, and their aesthetic choices were clearly affected by it.
Discovery may have simply required "will" to update the look, but Star Trek 2009 had to invoke time travel shenanigans in attempt to make their changes acceptable to fandom, going to far as to spell it out in the dialogue itself.
So if not exactly a stranglehold, those are certainly some tight constraints

 

[Christopher]

Well, it seems a lot of action, sci-fi films employ that documentary feel to it today.

Again, you're talking about something that's been common for an entire generation as if it were some brand-new thing. That's weird. I mean, I know, sometimes it's easy to forget how much time has passed since the '90s, but it was a pretty long time ago.

I never really cared for that us or them idea. That for some reason current Star Trek producers can't satisfy both old fans and bring in new fans. Why does it have to be that way?

It doesn't, of course, and I never said it did. Sure, it's best if you can satisfy both. The problem is when purist fans take it for granted that the exclusive goal of a reboot is to pander to their expectations and exactly copy what was done in the past. They're the ones playing us-vs.-them, the intolerant ones who condemn any updating as an attack on themselves.

But ultimately, let's face it, the old fans are going to die off. A franchise can't survive indefinitely by catering to the old guard. Change and innovation are necessary. It's great if you can satisfy the old guard, sure, but they're not the most important or largest segment of the target audience.

The criticism of Star Trek's engine room was that in all previous Starship designs there was a clear warp core at the center of all the ships function, which was not really depicted well in Star Trek (2009).

That makes no sense at all as a criticism, since TOS didn't have a clear warp core at the center either. The term "warp core" wasn't even invented until TNG's third season. (TMP called it an intermix chamber.)

I mean, even someone that never knew a thing about Star Trek, when they showed the engine room, you knew that was the heart of the ship.

Not really. If you look at how engineering was portrayed in TOS's early first season, it wasn't that much more clearly defined a space than it was in the '09 movie. Throughout TOS, it was never quite clear where engineering was located; it was just "the lower levels." You're back-projecting movie-era assumptions onto TOS.

Uh, OK...except that both Trials & Tribbleations and In A Mirror Darkly blatantly came later than Relics, and their aesthetic choices were clearly affected by it.

Oh, come on, I've already talked about this earlier in the thread. "Trials" was obviously built around stock TOS footage and thus had to duplicate the look. And IaMD, as I said, reused the same TOS-era reconstructions that had been built for "Trials" and expanded on them further, as well as renting fan-reconstructed props, so they had to perpetuate the look for budgetary reasons. I keep saying, it's irrational to ignore the role money plays in these decisions. Money always, always plays an overriding role in TV production.

Discovery may have simply required "will" to update the look, but Star Trek 2009 had to invoke time travel shenanigans in attempt to make their changes acceptable to fandom, going to far as to spell it out in the dialogue itself.

They didn't really, though, because the Kelvin was supposed to be from the Prime timeline and it had a different look as well. The reason for the time travel plot was not to justify the production design -- come on. It was done for story reasons, to enable the filmmakers to revisit the TOS characters while still being free to tell new stories about them.

 

[Damian]

But ultimately, let's face it, the old fans are going to die off.

Speak for yourself. I plan to live forever

Not really. If you look at how engineering was portrayed in TOS's early first season, it wasn't that much more clearly defined a space than it was in the '09 movie. Throughout TOS, it was never quite clear where engineering was located; it was just "the lower levels." You're back-projecting movie-era assumptions onto TOS.

I always assumed that red glowing contraption behind the fencing was the warp core (at least that's what we'd call it today). My main point that there seemed to be a heart to engineering. Somewhere where you could identify that incredible power was being created. For me, in the original series, it was the red glowing contraption. In the movies it was what was then called the intermix chamber, and so on. In Star Trek (2009) there wasn't any of that. It was a criticism that was leveled and in STID they made it more clear. Again, not how I would have depicted it, but as a fan I appreciated that they went to the trouble.

They didn't really, though, because the Kelvin was supposed to be from the Prime timeline and it had a different look as well. The reason for the time travel plot was not to justify the production design -- come on. It was done for story reasons, to enable the filmmakers to revisit the TOS characters while still being free to tell new stories about them.

That was my sense as well. That it was primarily for story reasons. I never got the sense production design played any part in it. Some of what I saw in the Kelvin, at least from the bridge standpoint, made me think it could be an evolutionary cousin to the NX-01, but I may be imagining things a bit. I certainly saw more similarities with the Franklin in Beyond (except for the stupid window on the bridge--what is it with that anyway).

Maybe, sometimes in the next 5 to 10 years when there is a novel contract someone will write a novel about the Kelvin and why it differed so much from what'd you'd expect of an early 23rd century Starship in the Prime Timeline. I'm sure you guys could come up with an explanation that makes sense

 

[Mytran]

Oh, come on, I've already talked about this earlier in the thread. "Trials" was obviously built around stock TOS footage and thus had to duplicate the look. And IaMD, as I said, reused the same TOS-era reconstructions that had been built for "Trials" and expanded on them further, as well as renting fan-reconstructed props, so they had to perpetuate the look for budgetary reasons. I keep saying, it's irrational to ignore the role money plays in these decisions. Money always, always plays an overriding role in TV production.

But would TAT have even been conceived of if Relics hadn't established the "always been that way" look of TOS technology? Probably not; the anniversary would have been celebrated some other way, perhaps utilising movie-era sets like VOY did. And IAMD would never have even got off the ground - how could it?

They didn't really, though, because the Kelvin was supposed to be from the Prime timeline and it had a different look as well. The reason for the time travel plot was not to justify the production design -- come on. It was done for story reasons, to enable the filmmakers to revisit the TOS characters while still being free to tell new stories about them.

Is the Kelvin really that much of a departure though? I recall many fans back in 2009 working it into their fannon without too much effort, not least because it is only one ship. Discovery seems quite happy to revise both the look and characters of the Prime Timeline, keeping "broad strokes" only of it's predecessor. The Kelvin universe played it safe by keeping most (if not all, depending on how you view Pegg's statement) in a separate universe. It was baby steps, attempting to placate the existing fanbase that ultimately paved the way for DSC.

 

[Christopher]

Is the Kelvin really that much of a departure though?

By the standards of the purists who scream bloody murder about anything that doesn't look exactly like "The Cage," hell, yeah. I mean, it had holographic readouts on the bridge providing real-time telemetry of Captain Robau's life signs. That's beyond anything we've seen even in the 24th century, and there were certainly fans at the time who objected to it as too advanced for the era. The Kelvin was complained about in the same terms that people complain about Discovery now. The only difference is that fans have had more time to get used to the Kelvin and rationalize its differences in their minds. I've seen this exact same pattern play out over and over again. The newest thing always gets the fiercest objections for its changes, and then a decade or two later when the next new thing comes along, people have gotten used to the previous new thing and forgotten that it provoked the exact same kinds of complaints.

 

[Damian]

By the standards of the purists who scream bloody murder about anything that doesn't look exactly like "The Cage," hell, yeah. I mean, it had holographic readouts on the bridge providing real-time telemetry of Captain Robau's life signs. That's beyond anything we've seen even in the 24th century, and there were certainly fans at the time who objected to it as too advanced for the era. The Kelvin was complained about in the same terms that people complain about Discovery now. The only difference is that fans have had more time to get used to the Kelvin and rationalize its differences in their minds. I've seen this exact same pattern play out over and over again. The newest thing always gets the fiercest objections for its changes, and then a decade or two later when the next new thing comes along, people have gotten used to the previous new thing and forgotten that it provoked the exact same kinds of complaints.

Ha-ha. Yeah, we're a fickle bunch to be sure. 10 years from now when Star Trek: Columbia comes out (just made that up) we'll all complain about how it doesn't look anything like Discovery and did the show runners even watch Discovery. Why do Klingons' in Columbia look nothing like they did in Discovery. Klingons aren't supposed to have hair.

It's what we do

 

[Mytran]

By the standards of the purists who scream bloody murder about anything that doesn't look exactly like "The Cage," hell, yeah. I mean, it had holographic readouts on the bridge providing real-time telemetry of Captain Robau's life signs. That's beyond anything we've seen even in the 24th century, and there were certainly fans at the time who objected to it as too advanced for the era. The Kelvin was complained about in the same terms that people complain about Discovery now. The only difference is that fans have had more time to get used to the Kelvin and rationalize its differences in their minds. I've seen this exact same pattern play out over and over again. The newest thing always gets the fiercest objections for its changes, and then a decade or two later when the next new thing comes along, people have gotten used to the previous new thing and forgotten that it provoked the exact same kinds of complaints.

Oh that pattern has been playing out since TMP debuted...wait, didn't we already go over this?
Something that I didn't find out until recently is that TOS's 3rd Season was also disavowed by some back in the day. Fans, eh?

 

[Christopher]

Something that I didn't find out until recently is that TOS's 3rd Season was also disavowed by some back in the day. Fans, eh?

Oh, yes, the third season was widely hated.

 

[Mytran]

Oh, yes, the third season was widely hated.

Yes, but to actually declare it non-canon? The more things change...

 

[Christopher]

Yes, but to actually declare it non-canon? The more things change...

Well, fans weren't obnoxiously fixated on the word "canon" like they are today, at least. It would've been more like just "deciding it didn't count" or "pretending it never happened."

 

[Tenacity]

Well, fans weren't obnoxiously fixated on the word "canon"

My understanding is that back in the seventies instead of the word "canon," the fans used "official Paramount."

But it was used the same way as canon is today.

Maybe there were some who considered it obnoxious?