What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

[TREK_GOD_1]

t. I wonder why.

I wonder why 1996 and 2005 viewers were not whining that the TOS sets, ship designs, costumes, etc., were "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" when recreated with exacting attention to period accuracy / detail to stand alongside the same in-universe world as the host series?

Nothing you or the other guy posted ever answer this question. Yes, one must wonder why.

 

[fireproof78]

I wonder why 1996 and 2005 viewers were not whining that the TOS sets, ship designs, costumes, etc., were "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" when recreated with exacting attention to period accuracy / detail to stand alongside the same in-universe world as the host series?

Nothing you or the other guy posted ever answer this question. Yes, one must wonder why.

The framing device makes the difference.

Now, in 2023 please take the exact same sets, outside of being framed as a special show, and sell it as a mainstream streaming series. Please. I want to see this happen.

If TOS is that awesome and amazing in it's set design as a believable branch of humanity's future here in 2023 then let's do it. Sell it to the mainstream audience.

 

[herofhyrule]

I wonder why 1996 and 2005 viewers were not whining that the TOS sets, ship designs, costumes, etc., were "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" when recreated with exacting attention to period accuracy / detail to stand alongside the same in-universe world as the host series?

Nothing you or the other guy posted ever answer this question. Yes, one must wonder why.

They have. Multiple times. It's a reference. An explicit callback. When presented with the opportunity to make an entire pre-TOS series using aesthetics that were less advanced than the TOS aesthetics, they didn't. Because it's unsustainable outside of easter eggs. You're just choosing to ignore that and pretending that explicit references in a few episodes is the exact same thing as making an entire TV series in the 2020s with aesthetics from the 1960s. Stop repeating the same thing over and over.
Also, way to completely ignore what I actually posted. Answer the question. Is the ENT bridge more advanced than the TOS bridge or isn't it?

 

[Paul755]

Realistically, a TV series from the 2020s is not going to have sets that are 100% accurate to a TV series from the 1960s. You can complain about canon/continuity all you want, but if SNW exactly copied the TOS sets, it just wouldn't be taken seriously. People would complain that it looks too outdated and low-budget. And they wouldn't really be wrong.

Well, it does stand out but I believe that's the point. The episodes in question were meant as an homage to TOS, one as an anniversary episode (VOY did one as well) and the other as "for shit's and giggles."

Inside that framing device they work well. But I am curious because fans seem convinced that if we took unaltered 60s era sets and designs they are acceptable to modern audiences.

I'm not convinced.

It’s an interesting “what if” thought exercise. What if the nu-Trek shows had copied The Cage/WNMHGB for uniforms (so we don’t deal with the “minefield” of micro-mini skirts and beehive hairdos) and the ship/set design from the rest of TOS/TOS-R from the start? I’m not entirely convinced the majority of people would reject it. Trekkies or casuals. But I don’t know for sure. Maybe they would.

On the whole I think Trek fans would accept the look because “of course, it’s a TOS prequel. That’s what the ships and uniforms are supposed to look like.” Would there be some Trekkies turned off, of course. But I don’t think there would be arguments saying “they should have updated the look”.

How much of the casual audience would really be turned off by simplistic looking sets and costumes? That’s tough to say in part because we don’t know how much of a casual audience Trek pulls in.

As an aside, it’s funny, until people began defending Discovery I had never heard people say “Relics”, “Trials…” and the Mirror 2-parter from Enterprise “didn’t count” because they were just “love letters” to the fans or whatever. They were just accepted.

 

[fireproof78]

As an aside, it’s funny, until people began defending Discovery I had never heard people say “Relics”, “Trials…” and the Mirror 2-parter from Enterprise “didn’t count” because they were just “love letters” to the fans or whatever. They were just accepted.

Well, that is my preference to just accept Trek as Trek, even if I don't agree with it.

And this is not me being mad at TOS or anything. I love the TOS aesthetic and do not believe it would sell to a broad audience to support a 2020s produced show. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

And it's not just the look but also the tech sensibility. Would the 60s era tech sensibility sell to a contemporary audience?

 

[herofhyrule]

It’s an interesting “what if” thought exercise. What if the nu-Trek shows had copied The Cage/WNMHGB for uniforms (so we don’t deal with the “minefield” of micro-mini skirts and beehive hairdos) and the ship/set design from the rest of TOS/TOS-R from the start? I’m not entirely convinced the majority of people would reject it. Trekkies or casuals. But I don’t know for sure. Maybe they would.

On the whole I think Trek fans would accept the look because “of course, it’s a TOS prequel. That’s what the ships and uniforms are supposed to look like.” Would there be some Trekkies turned off, of course. But I don’t think there would be arguments saying “they should have updated the look”.

How much of the casual audience would really be turned off by simplistic looking sets and costumes? That’s tough to say in part because we don’t know how much of a casual audience Trek pulls in.

As an aside, it’s funny, until people began defending Discovery I had never heard people say “Relics”, “Trials…” and the Mirror 2-parter from Enterprise “didn’t count” because they were just “love letters” to the fans or whatever. They were just accepted.

No one's saying they don't count. We're just saying that a 2020s TV series with 1960s aesthetics is not going to be taken seriously. I think the fans who would really appreciate the TOS aesthetics are a small minority. A lot of people wouldn't care one way or the other. But the important thing is that general audiences wouldn't accept it. I know that it's a bit taboo among a certain subset of Trek fans to suggest that Star Trek should try to broaden its audience and be a bit more mainstream (as shown by some of the response to the Kelvinverse films), but unless you want the franchise to slowly die off because no one except the most die-hard fans are watching it because it's stuck with 1960s aesthetics, then I feel like it shouldn't be controversial to say that a TV series made in the 2020s should actually look modern.

 

[herofhyrule]

And it's not just the look but also the tech sensibility. Would the 60s era tech sensibility sell to a contemporary audience?

Exactly. A lot of the futuristic tech from TOS is now commonplace, e.g. automatic doors, communicators/tricorders (mobile phones), voice-activated computers running everything, etc. Just about the only pieces of Federation tech from TOS that are still beyond our reach are transporters and warp drive. Obviously a modern audience is going to see the TOS bridge and have a hard time believing that it's set in the future. So they need to update it to make it look plausibly futuristic. Like I said, they did it with the NX-01 bridge in ENT, so this isn't a new thing.

 

[Citiprime]

I wonder why 1996 and 2005 viewers were not whining that the TOS sets, ship designs, costumes, etc., were "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" when recreated with exacting attention to period accuracy / detail to stand alongside the same in-universe world as the host series?

Nothing you or the other guy posted ever answer this question. Yes, one must wonder why.

The one example that comes to mind of 2020s TV science-fiction TV shows using past aesthetics is Star Wars, which keeps the 1970s/early 1980s look from the original trilogy with their Disney+ shows. Andor especially does this, showing the Empire with black and white displays, and control panels similar to the tech level in A New Hope.

Tony Gilroy and Jon Favreau didn’t say: “Well, we need to update Star Wars for a modern audience to be what George Lucas would do if he was creating it today.”

The usual response to this is that since Star Wars is set in a different galaxy far far away that makes it “different.” But that misses the point. You can make a believable, immersive environment with old designs if the story and acting makes it believable. Because your audience already is predisposed to accept the old designs and will go with it.

 

[fireproof78]

The one example that comes to mind of 2020s TV science-fiction TV shows using past aesthetics is Star Wars, which keeps the 1970s/early 1980s look from the original trilogy with their Disney+ shows. Andor especially does this, showing the Empire with black and white displays, and control panels similar to the tech level in A New Hope.

Tony Gilroy and Jon Favreau didn’t say: “Well, we need to update Star Wars for a modern audience to be what George Lucas would do if he was creating it today.”

The usual response to this is that since Star Wars is set in a different galaxy far far away that makes it “different.” But that misses the point. You can make a believable, immersive environment with old designs if the story and acting makes it believable. Because your audience already is predisposed to accept the old designs and will go with it.

Then do it.

Roddenberry abandoned TOS designs when offered the chance. But, if Star Wars is the way then start the petition. Y'all seem convinced this will be as successful as Andor. Prove it.

 

[Citiprime]

Then do it.

Roddenberry abandoned TOS designs when offered the chance. But, if Star Wars is the way then start the petition. Y'all seem convinced this will be as successful as Andor. Prove it.

If some of the comments online are to be believed, arguably the reaction to Picard season 3, and the petition for Legacy and giving Matalas a show to continue with is driven in part from elements of the fan base that loved seeing a version of Star Trek that embraced and used its past unaltered, even showing all of those old crusty designs from the 60s, 80s and 90s too.

Somehow people were able to deal with the carpeted floors.

 

[fireproof78]

If some of the comments online are to be believed, arguably the reaction to Picard season 3, and the petition for Legacy and giving Matalas a show to continue with is driven in part from elements of the fan base that loved seeing a version of Star Trek that embraced and used its past unaltered, even showing all of those old crusty designs from the 60s, 80s and 90s too.

Somehow people were able to deal with the carpeted floors.

Again, different framing device. Use those elements apart from nostalgia. Use them as an earnest vision of the future as the groundwork of a moden streaming show.

 

[Paul755]

Well, that is my preference to just accept Trek as Trek, even if I don't agree with it.

And this is not me being mad at TOS or anything. I love the TOS aesthetic and do not believe it would sell to a broad audience to support a 2020s produced show. I'd love to be proven wrong though.

And it's not just the look but also the tech sensibility. Would the 60s era tech sensibility sell to a contemporary audience?

oh, I accept Trek as Trek too. I still very much enjoy SNW, the designs, all that. Even though I would have preferred they used the TOS look.

I just don’t think you could say for certain one way or the other that it would or wouldn’t work for a broad audience design/costume wise.

As far as the 60s tech sensibility’s, it’s an interesting one. Maybe I’m not understanding what you mean. But what’s the real difference between what we saw on TOS and what we see now on SNW beyond the look. M’Benga for example was still using manuel methods to work on a cure for his daughter. Test tubes and such. Phasers still phaser, etc…And to borrow a loophole, just because we never saw a device used a certain way on TOS doesn’t mean it couldn’t behave that way now.

No one's saying they don't count. We're just saying that a 2020s TV series with 1960s aesthetics is not going to be taken seriously. I think the fans who would really appreciate the TOS aesthetics are a small minority. A lot of people wouldn't care one way or the other. But the important thing is that general audiences wouldn't accept it. I know that it's a bit taboo among a certain subset of Trek fans to suggest that Star Trek should try to broaden its audience and be a bit more mainstream (as shown by some of the response to the Kelvinverse films), but unless you want the franchise to slowly die off because no one except the most die-hard fans are watching it because it's stuck with 1960s aesthetics, then I feel like it shouldn't be controversial to say that a TV series made in the 2020s should actually look modern.

I know you’re not. But I have seen it in some of the many other arguments people have had across the threads on this subject.

I’ve got zero issues with them trying to reach a larger audience. The more the merrier. But I don’t think the 60’s aesthetic would be as much of a turnoff for them as you do. I might be wrong, you might be wrong. Unless someone actually does it there is no way to be sure.

 

[fireproof78]

Unless someone actually does it there is no way to be sure.

Exactly, yet there is a shit ton of certainty that 60s tech is A-Ok to the modern audience member.

Maybe so. I admire the conviction.

 

[Paul755]

Exactly, yet there is a shit ton of certainty that 60s tech is A-Ok to the modern audience member.

Maybe so. I admire the conviction.

the only certainty is that there is no certainty.

except that…ain’t no way could they do the micro-mini skirts today. I’ve started a TOS re-watch and I’d forgotten how short some of them are. Like Dr. Helen Noel in Dagger of the Mind…I have basketball jerseys longer than what they have her wearing.

 

[Citiprime]

the only certainty is that there is no certainty.

except that…ain’t no way could they do the micro-mini skirts today. I’ve started a TOS re-watch and I’d forgotten how short some of them are. Like Dr. Helen Noel in Dagger of the Mind…I have basketball jerseys longer than what they have her wearing.

That’s one thing I think modern Trek lacks though. With TOS and for better or worse with the early seasons of TNG, you get a feeling that the cultural norms of human society have shifted considerably. Like what we would consider appropriate dress and the norms of what people like for just how to light a room are different.

So that gives a feeling that 200 years in the future things are radically different in some ways.

But the further you get into the Berman era, that’s toned down a lot. They go more with the idea of a future that’s just updated from the styling norms of the present for the time period it’s airing in.

 

[Imaus]

Eh, Axanar shows you can update the design and it holds relatively well.

NX could had definitely been more cramped and looked pre-tos, they barely tried with the bridge or anything else on that show really - look at how fast they settled on the akiraprise design- or STD, or any of nutrek. There's this weird design philosophy to keep shoving in new features and bells and whistles and make it bigger, shinier, darker - to a lot of people, enough for these cbs goons to keep trying to appeal to them, it doesn't feel like enough/like they tried. Harsh lighting smacked everywhere than a few sources, shiny floors you couldn't pay people to wear skirts on for modesty, railings more akin for a skyscraper roof than inside a workplace.

The only thing I would ever add to the old bridge is a small ladder on the side of the turbolift or under a hatch by the viewscreen for emergency egress and update the computer screens to be active.

 

[fireproof78]

Eh, Axanar shows you can update the design and it holds relatively well.

That's not the argument. IT was stated that the 60s era designs hold up side by side with newer ones and would be welcome by modern audiences.

 

[Guy Gardener]

There is one very important nukable person in New York.

Supervisor 194, or their successor.

Pike seemed to be showing suitcase nukes in his slide show.

Maybe WWIII wasn't us vs us, but us vs them?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

They have. Multiple times. It's a reference. An explicit callback.

Which in no way answers:

I wonder why 1996 and 2005 viewers were not whining that the TOS sets, ship designs, costumes, etc., were "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" when recreated with exacting attention to period accuracy / detail to stand alongside the same in-universe world as the host series?

When presented with the opportunity to make an entire pre-TOS series using aesthetics that were less advanced than the TOS aesthetics, they didn't. Because it's unsustainable outside of easter eggs

Entire episodes fully integrated with actors and environments set in the TOS universe are not "easter eggs", which a laughable exercise in posting something entirely divorced from the truth. Viewers would have been triggered to cry the completely unsubstantiated "out of place", "cheap" or "outdated" opinions whether something was on screen for a minute or for an hour. To this date, no one trying to sell that fairy tale has proven that was the reaction in 1996 or 2005. The episodes were praised for--among many reasons--its smooth integration of TOS with the universes (and their production standards) of the two series. Oh, but it had to be because the viewers were just primed to see something that dominates the DS9 and ENT episodes' stories as this dreamed up "easter egg".

No, there's no evidence to support that story at all.

It’s an interesting “what if” thought exercise. What if the nu-Trek shows had copied The Cage/WNMHGB for uniforms (so we don’t deal with the “minefield” of micro-mini skirts and beehive hairdos) and the ship/set design from the rest of TOS/TOS-R from the start? I’m not entirely convinced the majority of people would reject it.

Agreed.

Trekkies or casuals. But I don’t know for sure. Maybe they would.

They were fine with entire episodes pretty much dominated by TOS in '96 and '05, and I cannot recall Paramount and/or the ST production offices flooded with complaints for the producers to never do that again because "it does not work".

But I don’t think there would be arguments saying “they should have updated the look”.

Same here.

As an aside, it’s funny, until people began defending Discovery I had never heard people say “Relics”, “Trials…” and the Mirror 2-parter from Enterprise “didn’t count” because they were just “love letters” to the fans or whatever. They were just accepted.

..which is a desperate, absurd argument to justify the DISCO production's choices and existence. No one ever said the episodes in question did not count / were not a part of DS9 / TNG / ENT continuity, so at the end of it all, some are so incredibly hostile to TOS that you will see the same empty claims i'm still waiting to see supported by some large group of ST fans back in '96 and '05.

 

[fireproof78]

.which is a desperate, absurd argument to justify the DISCO production's choices and existence. No one ever said the episodes in question did not count / were not a part of DS9 / TNG / ENT continuity, so at the end of it all, some are so incredibly hostile to TOS that you will see the same empty claims i'm still waiting to see supported by some large group of ST fans back in '96 and '05.

Hostile to TOS?

No.

Simply thinking it would not be accepted by a modern audience in 2023. Feel free to produce a show using it and prove me wrong. Nostalgic framing devices not used as a crutch and just a straight up new Trek show using the exact 60s designs and streamed to a modern audience. It would be accepted then, yes?