USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[Longinus]

Then I'm sorry, with all due respect, you do not have an eye for futuristic tech/aesthetics in fiction. TOS looks HORRIBLY dated, that's just how it is. I say this as someone who adores TOS. I don't even like all of Discovery's set aesthetics, but at least they don't destroy my suspension of disbelief as future technology.

Frankly, I think you have absurdly limited view of 'futuristic.' For example you complained about the 60s style chairs here or the deflector dish on the ship. Retrofuturism is a perfectly valid design choice. (Whether it has been successfully employed here is another matter.) Quality of the materials, additional details, and changing obviously outdated technical elements are one thing, but insisting that 'future' needs to look like it follows the design trends of 2019s is laughably limiting. Embracing mid-century modern is absolutely fine, and if done well will probably produce something that looks much more fresh to the modern audiences that trying to desperately look 'contemporary' like everybody else.

 

[GhostLoveScore]

How is this statement

“anyone who claims this is an appropriate and respectful reimagination has an awful taste and no sense of Star Trek”

Not insulting to people who like the design?

Why would it be? Personally I think people are too sensitive these days. If I drive a VW beetle and somebody says to me that I don't have any sense of how car should look, so what?
Insult is if I say to you: "Your father was a computer, like his son! An ambassador from a planet of traitors! The Vulcan never lived who had an ounce of integrity!"

Not if I say: Spock, I don't like those ears, you have an awful taste of what ears should look like.

 

[Tuskin38]

Telling someone they have awful taste is an insult.

 

[Longinus]

Telling someone they have awful taste is an insult.

Calm down!

 

[Tuskin38]

Telling someone that they don't like the look of their car isn't.

 

[KennyB]

I think the bridges of the Ent-Refit/-A in the TOS movies are the best Enterprise bridges.

I think my personal favorite was TUC........she looked damn good in that flick.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Right. It took me a while to enjoy Enterprise and Discovery at the start but I let go because, you know, that's how you enjoy stuff, but not being stuck on details and stuff that is, largely, unimportant.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

Back to the discussion: was anyone else surprised (and disappointed) that they showed the bridge in the preview? I was hoping for a big suspenseful reveal next week. Then again, we got the same nonchalant introduction to the D-7 this week.

 

[GNDN18]

 

[GhostLoveScore]

Frankly, I think you have absurdly limited view of 'futuristic.' For example you complained about the 60s style chairs here or the deflector dish on the ship. Retrofuturism is a perfectly valid design choice. (Whether it has been successfully employed here is another matter.) Quality of the materials, additional details, and changing obviously outdated technical elements are one thing, but insisting that 'future' needs to look like it follows the design trends of 2019s is laughably limiting. Embracing mid-century modern is absolutely fine, and if done well will probably produce something that looks much more fresh to the modern audiences that trying to desperately look 'contemporary' like everybody else.

Absolutely. If done correctly TOS would look futuristic. I've always said that simplicity is futuristic. Take a look at what our own technology looks compared to 20 years ago. Mobile phones look simple, only a screen and plastic back side. TV's look like a painting on the wall. Speakers are hidden in appliances. We have a bladeless fans, we have cars with nothing but central touch screen and the wheel.

I wanted to make a 3d model of updated TOS interiors but unfortunately, all of my free time goes to my studies at this time, but I'm confident I can make TOS look futuristic with minimal changes.

 

[Mudd]

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.

Actually, everything that appears onscreen is canon, if the word means anything.

What people can't wrap their heads around is that the definition of canon does not include "without Internal contradiction or inconsistency."

I generally dislike the visual design of this series. Having said that, I think that their updating of TOS elements - uniforms, Talosians, the -Enterprise bridge - has been pretty good on the whole. A little rough, and rushed - if they were going to use this stuff every week on TV it ought to be refined IMO - but for props and sets that are going to appear for a few minutes in a couple of episodes, they've made an earnest effort to do right by the old stuff and they've largely succeeded.

 

[Belz...]

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).

Except that the original SW was 1) on a movie budget and 2) already retro-looking back in '77. It's a bit silly to compare the two.

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.

Precisely.

And that's fair. I would like it if they took the time to address the differences (Dr. Who handled it wonderfully just in one line "You changed the desktop theme!"). But Trek writers do things differently than Who writers and that's fine. But as a fan, I'm free to express a preference. That's all.

I think as Star Trek fans we'd all like the franchise to be more consistent, both in terms of story and design, but also as adults we should expect that new showrunners and designers to try to make the franchise their own, and that means new designs. I think we should still expect the timeline to roughly fit, mind you, but that's my own personal view. Of course, I would've prefered if Discovery was set post-Nemesis, to avoid all those issues, but since they went for a prequel, that's the sort of thing we have to expect and accept.

 

[Belz...]

If you want to consider that an insult then yes.

Why not just say he doesn't like the design rather than do the whole, juvenile "only an idiot could disagree with me"? That's not the sort of thing an adult should be saying, and I don't think Schneider is an idiot.

 

[Yistaan]

I think as Star Trek fans we'd all like the franchise to be more consistent, both in terms of story and design, but also as adults we should expect that new showrunners and designers to try to make the franchise their own, and that means new designs. I think we should still expect the timeline to roughly fit, mind you, but that's my own personal view. Of course, I would've prefered if Discovery was set post-Nemesis, to avoid all those issues, but since they went for a prequel, that's the sort of thing we have to expect and accept.

That Doctor Who line I mentioned was literally from a new showrunner about a new design. There's no reason Trek can't do the same with their dialogue.

 

[Belz...]

I think the bridges of the Ent-Refit/-A in the TOS movies are the best Enterprise bridges.

So do I, in a way, and yet they are VERY different from the TOS bridge (TFF's is the closest). We usually don't hear complaints about them.

Why would it be? Personally I think people are too sensitive these days.

Agreed about sensitivity. Something can still be meant as an insult, even if no one takes offense at it.

 

[Belz...]

Absolutely. If done correctly TOS would look futuristic. I've always said that simplicity is futuristic. Take a look at what our own technology looks compared to 20 years ago. Mobile phones look simple, only a screen and plastic back side.

Correct. But reality and fiction aren't the same thing. Sometimes fiction needs to look unrealistic in a way. Take the so-called "aztec" plating on the ships since 1979. Real ships don't have such platings because they welded and then painted. But in order to give sci-fi ships scale they put more detail. It's a trick, but it works. Same with sets.

That Doctor Who line I mentioned was literally from a new showrunner about a new design. There's no reason Trek can't do the same with their dialogue.

There's also no reason for them to do so. It bogs down the story when the audience should be sharp enough to understand that they just changed stuff. Not that I like it, but there's no reason to discuss it on the show explicitly.

 

[Yistaan]

So do I, in a way, and yet they are VERY different from the TOS bridge (TFF's is the closest). We usually don't hear complaints about them.

No complaints because the changes are explained in dialogue (the refit/new ship). Many fans are ok with changes, but they want them explained. They don't want to be told what they saw is not what they saw (i.e. this was really the bridge the whole time, even when it obviously was not)

 

[KennyB]

No complaints because the changes are explained in dialogue (the refit/new ship). Many fans are ok with changes, but they want them explained. They don't want to be told what they saw is not what they saw (i.e. this was really the bridge the whole time, even when it obviously was not)

OK that's good for TMP and TFF.........but the bridge in the films changed with every film......

 

[Yistaan]

OK that's good for TMP and TFF.........but the bridge in the films changed with every film......

I looked up Memory Alpha and the only change I noted was from 5 to 6.

I'm actually fine with the new Disco bridge. It would have been nice if they kept the blue rectangular shape on the viewscreen, but it's fine. I'm honestly more interested what Number One's name is.

 

[Belz...]

Many fans are ok with changes, but they want them explained.

And what I'm telling you is that they have essentially no reason to want them explained, except entitlement. I know what I'm talking about.

I looked up Memory Alpha and the only change I noted was from 5 to 6

No, every movie made changes. And between 2 and 3 there are no possible excuses.