Walrusman's head was too big!
Spoilers Canon, Continuity, and Pike's Accident
- Thread starter CorporalCaptain
- Start date
You're mistaking aesthetics for functionality. That's like saying your stylish macbook is more advanced than the gray cabinets of supercomputers despite the supercomputer being a gazillion times more powerful
By TOS it's probably the gray cabinet.
a vast majority of viewers would see the TOS aesthetic and think it it looks outdated. Where's the touch screens? the labels?
They're making this show for everyone, not just people stuck in the past.
For what it's worth, early episodes of TOS showed they had full fledged motion controls (you can see some people swiping in the air or something and functions changed, but they dropped this concept probably because it was too confusing for 1960s audience. Sorry, don't remember the episodes this was featured)
They can update the aesthetic and they have. But they shouldn't venture in TOS territory. By the time it gets there, do a time jump or leave well enough alone. But it's moot as with Paramount's problems we're lucky if SNW makes it to 2265.
The show can go after the mainstream audience, just don't forget who got them there. You're acting like Trek has been ignoring the mainstream for decades and is only now seeking them. That's not remotely true. It's only now in question more because of prequels which ironically cater more to die-hards than anything. The last 2 episodes of SNW had me explaining who Khan was, what the Eugenics war was, and why Rigel 7 supposedly is so meaningful to Pike (admittedly the latter was mostly recapped in the episode itself)
I never tire of telling the following, but JJ Abrams went full mainstream with his Trek 2009 movie and stated that he specifically made this movie for mainstream people who knew nothing about Trek. I saw it in theater with a woman from Tianjin, China, who literally knew nothing about Trek (the textbook audience member JJ said he was targeting), and she hated it.
They can do whatever they want. Why shouldn't they keep using the updated aesthetic? It's not the 1960s anymore.
Spock used hand motion controls to change a screen display in "The Cage", one of the upper bridge displays on the side.
Indeed. I find it far easier to believe you can actually control a Starship with this...
Compared to this...
Well obviously they can. I mean, what can I do? You're acting like I'm going to file charges and try to arrest Akiva Goldman or something.
They're the legal owner, then can do whatever they want. I said they should "do a time jump or leave well enough alone". I never said what they were doing was illegal, it feels like you're distorting my post.
That said, just because they can do it doesn't mean they should or that I have to like it.
Have you even played the game it seems you got the latter screenshot from? Because I have (Bridge Crew: https://store.steampowered.com/app/527100/Star_Trek_Bridge_Crew/ ). And that game shows (I know I've played it) that the controls are exactly the same and the only difference is cosmetic.Indeed. I find it far easier to believe you can actually control a Starship with this...
Compared to this...
And yes, the 1960s interface works quite fine on a 21st century PC game. Don't believe me? Go and play it, it's not that expensive.
I've played the above in Bridge Crew. Everything works in the 21st century game. The meaningless 1960s buttons have functions in the game.
That's a photo.
Exactly so. It seems like Trek is to be forever bound to a 60s era interpretation of humanity's future.
I'm confident in saying that helming and navigating an almost half kilometer long Starship through the vastness of space would be a little more involved than what's depicted in a video game.Well obviously they can. I mean, what can I do? You're acting like I'm going to file charges and try to arrest Akiva Goldman or something.
They're the legal owner, then can do whatever they want. I said they should "do a time jump or leave well enough alone". I never said what they were doing was illegal, it feels like you're distorting my post.
That said, just because they can do it doesn't mean they should or that I have to like it.
Have you even played the game it seems you got the latter screenshot from? Because I have (Bridge Crew: https://store.steampowered.com/app/527100/Star_Trek_Bridge_Crew/ ). And that game shows (I know I've played it) that the controls are exactly the same and the only difference is cosmetic.
And yes, the 1960s interface works quite fine on a 21st century PC game. Don't believe me? Go and play it, it's not that expensive.
I've played the above in Bridge Crew. Everything works in the 21st century game. The meaningless 1960s buttons have functions in the game.
7 people do it in Picard series finale AND when I pointed out the implausibility people (not necessarily you, but I can't remember), told me that it's actually pilotable by 1 if necessary in-universe.
Kirk fully expected to get to Genesis in ST3 with just him and a disabled McCoy on the 1701, so the fact that it can be piloted by 1 (or 2) is already canon: "I can't ask you to go any further. Doctor McCoy and I have to do this. The rest of you do not."
I'm talking about control interfaces. How the hell does a navigator do their job on the TOS Navigation console?
Ok, why don't you play the game then and come back and tell me what essential interfaces are missing. Let's be honest, until you've actually played it, you can't have an informed conversation on this. If you really want PM me and I can gift you a copy of the game so you don't even have to pay for it.
Yeah, I'm good. Thanks.
Similar threads
