Yes, yes it could. Try as they might it's hard for Star Trek ( and most entertainment) to escape the era they were made in.
What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?
- Thread starter Amasov
- Start date
It's not like they're having Pike say anything like, "That's some mad diggity-dank shit! You're the goat, Mr. Spock! Respect!"
"This planet is whack, Mr. Spock. These people have no damn drip. They're all so basic, yo."
Now I want to see the scene where this would happen.
I agree with both of you, but your attempts to evoke 21st Century youth patter cannot help but invoke:
A show that ostensibly was anti-Reagan, how does TNG feel like Reagan-80s?
The visuals and filming tech and music used. Philosophically it's fairly progressive (if damned grating and professorial at times) but in terms of the show's look, especially in the first three seasons - it's a time capsule of 1980s television.
It is what it is. How can anything not be a product of it’s time?
ENT already feels like a post-9/11 show. It may be HD and widescreen but it definitely screams "The Dawn of the 2000s."
Three if we include NCC-1701-Z (izzard).
Mistake or not, the dialogue was front and centre in the episode (and in-universe, I'm sure Season2Data would have corrected Riker if there has been an error).
The Memory Alpha article also lists NCC-24383, NCC-71807 and NCC-71806 as viable canon registries for the USS Yamato, so perhaps it had several numbers assigned to it?
When did the letters start to creep back in?
Sometimes TrekBBS has an annoyingly incomplete idea of what "unread" means.
Both look dated, but TNG doesn't look more dated than TOS. I can't buy into the argument that it does.
TOS looks like a show from 1966-1969. TNG looks like a show from 1987-1994. I'll never think of either show, "That could pass for something made Today!"
TOS looks like a show from 1966-1969. TNG looks like a show from 1987-1994. I'll never think of either show, "That could pass for something made Today!"
The interactions between the characters for feels.
For the aesthetic, I just think the 1960s has aged better than the 1980s. Retro-futurism vs. Beige, pastels and yet more beige.
YMMV.
At first glance, I would have only agreed about the 'feels' part, primarily because of TNG's 'no conflict' among the crew rule, and other general feelings of it being a utopia.
But now that I think about it, I have to agree about the look, as well. The ultra clean, hotel look of the interior of the Enterprise-D was too... clean. I don't know another way to say it. TOS has the buttons and feels more grounded to the touch inside the Enterprise.
Thanks!
Yup, it definitely screams 80s. If you rewatch "Haven", the one where Troi's arranged marriage falls to pieces, there's that lovely dinner scene where Yar's hair alone screams so loud that it breaks all the windows. So glad that the ship uses transparent aluminum...
They can try, but then that gaggle of critics in the other corner will bleat how guessing future styles will never work and/or how tacky it looks. TNG seems to be one of the last shows that tried to predict future-fashion, but used some common sense in merely blending the trendiest angled motifs of the 80s with snorty late-disco, if I remember all the complaints about the civvie attires that Wesley, Geordi, and others got... what are they supposed to wear, a t-shirt and denim blue jeans as if it's still 2002, 2011, 2023...?
Then again, I actually like the TNG uniforms, the stylish VISOR device, and Leah's triangular earrings, so nobody's perfect...
* Yay for polygonal rooms, woohoo!
Honestly, TNG's attempts at predicting the future in that way are a big part of why it feels so heavily dated. They may have felt futuristic-ish at the time, but with a bit of space between then and now its painfully obvious how deeply 80s all of those predictions really are. If they had been less concerned with trying that sort of thing there would actually be less aspects of the series that feel so completely outdated.
Someone once pointed out to me that Kirk (and the crew, but specifically Kirk) has a much more timeless look in the first two seasons while in the third his hair got a little longer and it was a slightly more "contemporary" look and it starts to look like it HAS to be the late 1960's.
Sean Connery in his early Bond films for the most part never screams "NINETEEN SIXTIES" while Diamonds are Forever and Roger Moore's films dated far faster.
That's not really anything that was on purpose. They got lucky. It's also easier to have staying power with tried and true rather than trying to be cutting edge. You MIGHT land on a trend that will last (Sisko's look is aging like fine wine) but the odds are against you.
Sean Connery in his early Bond films for the most part never screams "NINETEEN SIXTIES" while Diamonds are Forever and Roger Moore's films dated far faster.
That's not really anything that was on purpose. They got lucky. It's also easier to have staying power with tried and true rather than trying to be cutting edge. You MIGHT land on a trend that will last (Sisko's look is aging like fine wine) but the odds are against you.
800 pages of this shit! 
Similar threads
- Locked
