USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
I still don't see what would be so wrong with using the original floorplan and chairs, while just updating the computer consoles and displays.....
Absolutely agree. From this angle we can't see everything, but considering how much everything else has been updated they look sorely out of place. Weird.
I like the new bridge. To try making it look a lot more like the original would fail... because it is dated. And this is a "reboot," so Ex Astris Scientia is having a seizure for no good reason at all.
Last edited:
They can.
Starfleet ships’ bridges are replaceable modules that can be swapped out at will.
Bernd doesn't like Star Trek at all. He's hated pretty much everything since and including Enterprise, and even then, the average ratings for every pre-2000 series is very low (VOY is the highest rated at 5.33 out of 10, which is pretty meh). Seems like he loves a theoretical version of the franchise, not the actual thing. His site is a great ressource but his opinions are nonsense.
Last edited:
Surely you've seen the conversations at some point when this was discussed numerous times in the last year and a half, no?
Leaving aside the fact that a set made in the 60s won't cut it nowadays, it's entirely expected that when making a new series with its own designs, they'd make a new version of the Enterprise bridge. The thing is, the only people who care about it not being exactly the same as the TOS one is die-hard fans. So why should CBS care?
Quite telling that Voyager has the highest overall average rating for him, at 5.33, surpassing TNG (5.23) and DS9 (5.18). Boy, it's really weird to think that ten years ago EAS was my go-to Trek site before anything else.
He rated the Star Trek: Renegades fan film 9/10.
Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but his Trek has long past and it's not coming back. Maybe time to let go.
Everyone's entitled to their preferences, but his Trek has long past and it's not coming back. Maybe time to let go.
I know we've only seen the one angle, and it is dominated by the same-shaped viewscreen, but it's still embarrassingly obvious with the slightest examination that the Enterprise and Discovery bridges are not, structurally, the same set. Especially considering that DSC is not exceptionally good at hiding set redresses.
I gotta say, that was all a lot more compelling before they started cranking out Star Wars films set contemporaneously with the originals where all the sets look exactly how you remember them (though not, I emphasize, how they actually were).
I'm not the one who made them set a show in the TOS era. If you're making a Star Trek period piece, I really don't understand this terror of making a Star Trek period piece. There were no shortage of alternatives that would allow them to rationalize an all-new look-and-feel.
Star Wars isn’t our future. It doesn’t need to look futuristic.
Strictly speaking, in reality futuristic tech doesn't always look futuristic. My android phone is a blank slab compared to the flip phone with buttons, yet the flip phone is older.
As a PC gamer, tons of games are released every day that have worse graphics than games decades older. Look no further than Minecraft.
Remember how 3D TVs were going to catch on? Now those are a thing of the past mostly, yet those are more "futuristic" than the newer 4K TVs now.
Many newer laptops don't even have disc drives or proper ethernet ports.
Guess which game is 13 years newer.
Last edited:
This guy is the Ian Levene of Star Trek and his opinion should be taken just as seriously as Levine's view of current Doctor Who.
Last edited:
I agree with him completely. He put it better than I ever could.
So basically you want to insult everyone that likes the design?
G
Gonzo
Guest
Good Times, Good Times, I remember them well.
"And another thing, the Kelvin Enterprise is only 366 meters long!"
I don't think being told I don't have a "sense of Star Trek" is much of an insult. It barely even means anything.
And as for having 'awful taste'.. I'll cop to that. If only because I think anyone who describes their own tastes as 'good' is insufferable.
You just can't explain it to some people, so I've given up trying. They cannot wrap their mind around production issues that require updating of things. To them visuals ARE canon. But they're not. STORY IS CANON. Visuals are to visualize that story instead of it being in a book.
The people who argue that you wouldn't make a World War 2 movie with F-22s and F-35s kill me. Conflating reality with a fictional depiction of the future from the 1960s. Now, let's say you made a dramatization movie about Gene Roddenberry making Star Trek in the 1960s. Then YES, it would need to be TOS sets to be "era appropriate." But in-universe looking like cardboard sets and jellybean buttons as a suspension of disbelief of our future tech is absurd.
The people who argue that you wouldn't make a World War 2 movie with F-22s and F-35s kill me. Conflating reality with a fictional depiction of the future from the 1960s. Now, let's say you made a dramatization movie about Gene Roddenberry making Star Trek in the 1960s. Then YES, it would need to be TOS sets to be "era appropriate." But in-universe looking like cardboard sets and jellybean buttons as a suspension of disbelief of our future tech is absurd.
I think it's more the fact the 1960s bridge doesn't look that bad. Yes the screen needed to be changed to widescreen, but everything else was fine as long as you replace the neon blinking screensaver lights with actual realistic data grids, charts, etc. I would have been fine with adding holograms too.
Similar threads
