Why...? ... it could be a portable storage device with several million terabytes of space on it.
(or much more)
I don't get the problem with future Trek having that kind of a device.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
(or much more)
I don't get the problem with future Trek having that kind of a device.
The use of it doesn't imply as such. At least not in TOS.
and yet they factually were.
They don’t hold up to modern standards. Why do you want to show to look simple?
The only time the TOS bridge set and costumes were used in 90s Trek was as call-backs and cameos, for that it would have been needlessly expensive to create an updated version of either.
Now however they are going to be used for a whole new series and potentially years of storytelling, so now it is reasonable to update their look, both financially and to make sure the show doesn't look like it was produced I the 1960s.
All they want is consistency, whether the tech makes sense or not.
When "In the Mirror, Darkly" first aired, someone from this board was talking to me over chat, and he said that he thought the Defiant -- basically a stand-in for the original Enterprise -- looked horribly dated and out-of-place. He was trying to soften the blow, as he was saying it, because he knew how big of a TOS Fan I was (and am). I told him not to worry about it. I get it. Then I took a look at the episode thread in the ENT Forum and they were (as usual) fighting about everything. And one camp of posters was screaming (because what else did they do?) about how dated the Defiant looked while the other camp was defending its look as if the fate of entire world depended on it.
Long story short, not everyone was enamored or just accepted the look of the TOS Era in 2005. Some people here are trying to make it sound like that was the case. But it wasn't.
Even with the production of ENT itself, I rented the DVD from Netlix in 2010 when I started my original binge of the series (before I found another/easier way to binge the rest of it online), and watched the commentary for "Broken Bow". Rick Berman was talking about how they had to figure out how to split the difference between calling back to TOS and still making it look like a show from 2001.
In 1996, with "Trials and Tribble-ations", everyone knew it was a fun look back. It wasn't this serious thing. The outdated look of TOS was a major part of the episode's charm. Before someone tries to twist that into something they know I didn't mean, they were warmly embracing the series warts-and-all. It was self-aware. And that's a big part of what I liked about it. But Niners online didn't think, "Oh! This works today!" I didn't think, "Oh! This works today for something more serious!"
In 1992, I wasn't online yet, but with "Relics", the whole point was Scotty was looking back. TUC just came out not even a year earlier. Scotty revisiting the Enterprise-A bridge wouldn't have given the feel they were going for. So they showed the TOS bridge.
I don't think in 1992, 1996, or 2005 -- like others have said -- that they would've based an ENTIRE SERIES on how things looked in TOS. As in exactly how things looked in TOS. To say otherwise is looking back at the '90s and '00s through a revisionist lens. Robert Wise didn't even think the TOS Look worked in 1978, when they filmed the bulk of TMP.
Strange New Worlds will probably be a lot closer to the look of TOS than Discovery was. It still won't be TOS, but it'll try to evoke that look more closely, if the Enterprise and the uniforms are anything to go by. And for what SNW is trying to be, that's good enough for me. If I want to watch recreated TOS, that's what Star Trek Continues is for. Or better yet, I'll just watch TOS itself.
EDITED TO ADD: When I was creating the FAQ for the TOS Forum (you can still see the last version I wrote pinned at the top of the forum today), in an early draft in 2004, I was asking posters for suggestions for what to put in the FAQ. One of the posters -- I'm not going to say who -- told me I should put in the question "Does TOS look cheesy?" and he provided the answer to go with the question of "No, not at all..." and went into why.
I told him I wasn't going to include the question because it was opinion-based. Which was a cover for what I was really thinking but wouldn't say (because I was moderating the forum at the time!), which was: I didn't know if I actually agreed with him. In addition to the flashing-blinking lights, lack of detail, and other elements, we have Earth with no clouds. The show was what it was, and I love the show, and it has a very unique style, but it's not some Visual Pillar.
Long story short, not everyone was enamored or just accepted the look of the TOS Era in 2005. Some people here are trying to make it sound like that was the case. But it wasn't.
Even with the production of ENT itself, I rented the DVD from Netlix in 2010 when I started my original binge of the series (before I found another/easier way to binge the rest of it online), and watched the commentary for "Broken Bow". Rick Berman was talking about how they had to figure out how to split the difference between calling back to TOS and still making it look like a show from 2001.
In 1996, with "Trials and Tribble-ations", everyone knew it was a fun look back. It wasn't this serious thing. The outdated look of TOS was a major part of the episode's charm. Before someone tries to twist that into something they know I didn't mean, they were warmly embracing the series warts-and-all. It was self-aware. And that's a big part of what I liked about it. But Niners online didn't think, "Oh! This works today!" I didn't think, "Oh! This works today for something more serious!"
In 1992, I wasn't online yet, but with "Relics", the whole point was Scotty was looking back. TUC just came out not even a year earlier. Scotty revisiting the Enterprise-A bridge wouldn't have given the feel they were going for. So they showed the TOS bridge.
I don't think in 1992, 1996, or 2005 -- like others have said -- that they would've based an ENTIRE SERIES on how things looked in TOS. As in exactly how things looked in TOS. To say otherwise is looking back at the '90s and '00s through a revisionist lens. Robert Wise didn't even think the TOS Look worked in 1978, when they filmed the bulk of TMP.
Strange New Worlds will probably be a lot closer to the look of TOS than Discovery was. It still won't be TOS, but it'll try to evoke that look more closely, if the Enterprise and the uniforms are anything to go by. And for what SNW is trying to be, that's good enough for me. If I want to watch recreated TOS, that's what Star Trek Continues is for. Or better yet, I'll just watch TOS itself.
EDITED TO ADD: When I was creating the FAQ for the TOS Forum (you can still see the last version I wrote pinned at the top of the forum today), in an early draft in 2004, I was asking posters for suggestions for what to put in the FAQ. One of the posters -- I'm not going to say who -- told me I should put in the question "Does TOS look cheesy?" and he provided the answer to go with the question of "No, not at all..." and went into why.
I told him I wasn't going to include the question because it was opinion-based. Which was a cover for what I was really thinking but wouldn't say (because I was moderating the forum at the time!), which was: I didn't know if I actually agreed with him. In addition to the flashing-blinking lights, lack of detail, and other elements, we have Earth with no clouds. The show was what it was, and I love the show, and it has a very unique style, but it's not some Visual Pillar.
Last edited:
I think this needs to be reminded that TOS look was not always treated as the premier look that it seems to be treated as now. Roddenberry wanted to distance himself from the look as did Wise in TMP.
I really don't get it tbh. I get nostalgia and having a fondness for a certain era of a franchise. I love the way TNG looks, personally.
But do people really want the set and costumes to look like in TOS? With the glued-on pictures on the side "monitors" and the women in giant bouffant beehive and tiny, tiny miniskirts and crap like that?
I sure as hell wouldn't want a modern Trek show to look like it was made in the late 80s, even if it was set just before TNG.
But do people really want the set and costumes to look like in TOS? With the glued-on pictures on the side "monitors" and the women in giant bouffant beehive and tiny, tiny miniskirts and crap like that?
I sure as hell wouldn't want a modern Trek show to look like it was made in the late 80s, even if it was set just before TNG.
Eh, even if Strange New Worlds (or Disco) looked exactly like Pike's era did back in the 60s, people would still find things to complain about. You can't please that section of the fandom, and I for one applaud the ones in charge of the franchise for (mostly) not even trying.
I think it's far more related to nostalgia and wanting Star Trek to be safe and familiar. The comment I often hear described is "comfort food." It also is this push for complete uniformity, where Trek cannot change in its style.
Fidelity to TOS is a matter of degree, and everyone has their own level that they like.
First you have TOS, with the buget constrains and 1960s technology
Then you have In a Mirror Darkly and Star Trek Coninues with exact replicas of the sets but flatscreen monitors and labeled pushable buttons
Third is my preference where the sets are the same floorplan and the furniture and props are basically the same shape but all the finishes are upgraded and everything is more detailed/advanced. (If you put a blur filter on a picture of the "new" bridge you wouldn't be able to tell which version it was) I'm trying to think of a good example of this approach, but it would sort of like faithfully adapting a comic book costume to film, you need to fill in all the details for live action that aren't there on the page.
Fourth is the Strange New World redesign that hearkens back to the original, NuBSG did this too.
Fifth is the JJ Abrams approach that resembled the original in broad strokes.
Sorry, but I think that would only work if you make it a comedy show making fun of old, cheesy TV scifi. Like a Captain Proton or Galaxy Quest kinda show.
I disagree here. The bridge and uniforms that we saw in DISC looked a LOT closer to TOS than *anything* in NuBSG looked to original BSG.
From where I'm standing the DISC version of the bridge and the uniform is as faithful as they can be to the original without drowning in camp.
You know, Galaxy Quest would be a great example of that style, except it's already parodying trek, I'm sure there must be a "real" example out there.
With regards to BSG I was specifically thinking of the design of the Vipers when I made the statement, different aspects of the production hewed to different levels. The Galactica herself is JJ Abrams level redesign.
I am quite pleased with the new bridge, I just wonder if the cutoff line for camp is way closer to the original than we might think. Take the new captain's chair. Great subtle update, but side by side, is one really campier than the other?
Only when looking at the buttons.
The elephant in the room: TOS was pre-Star Wars. All of Star Trek from TMP onward is post-Star Wars. Visually, it had all the impact in the world.
But there's probably actually a bit more to it than even that. In 1968, Gene Roddenberry very likely probably saw 2001: A Space Odyssey. Just an educated guess. And guaranteed he probably thought, "I wish Star Trek could look like that!" Indeed, over a decade later, looking at TMP, the influence is undeniable. Once "In Thy Image" was turned into The Motion Picture, he must've had those types of visuals in mind while he was re-working that script to fit the Big Screen.
And the success of Star Wars enabled this to happen. The argument between the look of 1960s Star Trek and the look of Star Trek since 1979 has existed ever since. I hate to burst the bubble of those who like to use Alex Kurtzman as a scapegoat, but it hasn't gone on for about four years, it's gone on for about 40. It's just that different production teams have had different answers for how they want to approach it.
But there's probably actually a bit more to it than even that. In 1968, Gene Roddenberry very likely probably saw 2001: A Space Odyssey. Just an educated guess. And guaranteed he probably thought, "I wish Star Trek could look like that!" Indeed, over a decade later, looking at TMP, the influence is undeniable. Once "In Thy Image" was turned into The Motion Picture, he must've had those types of visuals in mind while he was re-working that script to fit the Big Screen.
And the success of Star Wars enabled this to happen. The argument between the look of 1960s Star Trek and the look of Star Trek since 1979 has existed ever since. I hate to burst the bubble of those who like to use Alex Kurtzman as a scapegoat, but it hasn't gone on for about four years, it's gone on for about 40. It's just that different production teams have had different answers for how they want to approach it.
Last edited:
I think this needs to be restated. People treat Kurztman (and Abrams by extension) as though they just walked in to Star Trek with a wrecking ball and that everyone before then had complete respect for how past material was treated. Except, that wasn't the way. This reverence for TOS is really only a product of fan obsessiveness, rather than a direct continuation of what was intended with TOS from TMP and TWOK and TNG.
did the kelvin bridge look simple/substandard/60s to you? did the nx-01, or the SG-1 battlecruiser?
or, just perhaps, this is about the ship itself, established features inside and outside, and not about whether the pictures are glued on... has that occurred to you? XD
that's what I'd like to see. keep it at say 85% similarity, and make the established features futuristic without changing them completely. they have power strip switches on the disco consoles, and the 60s jelly buttons on the disco enterprise already. why did they put those there if it's so substandard, so 60s, and so simple?
Because fans obsess with such minutia? The fan base is not kind to the production teams who change things. Since TMP.
