Spoilers Could it be that we actually already saw 32nd century Klingons, without realizing it?

[Gepard]

I'm not sure the point ever was to make Trek have a look based on military design, at least when Roddenberry was in charge. Star Trek 2-4 took the look to industrial/military design based largely on Meyer/Bennett influence. What did TNG do? With infinitely more budget than TOS now that Trek was a proven brand, they could've turned the Ent-D bridge into a military/industrial design setting following from the new movie look. They didn't, and yet the show was a big hit.

Not at all my point. Star Wars benefited from recycling real-world parts that were themselves the beneficiaries of hundreds of millions of dollars of industrial design and manufacturing. Regardless of aesthetics, that's going to create more durable results than plywood panels and colored resin poured into ice cube trays.

The process made Star Wars' look indelible, more so than specific aesthetic choices.

 

[The Wormhole]

Admittedly once Gene died and TNG ended, the movies (starting after blowing up the D) and subsequent Treks went back to the military look again. But TOS was NEVER meant to have a military look, even budget concerns aside, and I think TNG proved that.

This would really stem more from how Roddenberry saw Trek than any budget constraints I think (although obviously those budget constraints were there). Every time he was around, Trek wasn't looking dark and military. Every time he wasn't involved (later TOS movies) or dead (TNG movies and every show after TNG), they went back to dark and military.

Fun fact, though it is often ignored by those on That Side of The Argument today, it was in fact Gene Himself who was constantly reminding everyone while TOS was in production that Starfleet was supposed to be a military. He didn't decide it wasn't a military until TWOK went into production and he lashed out at Bennett and Meyer's more overt and explicit militaristic depiction of Starfleet. But really, He was so desperate to discredit them that even if they had gone and shown Starfleet as some sort of pacifistic Future NASA, Gene would still have lashed out and said that was wrong and Starfleet should be a military.

 

[Yistaan]

Fun fact, though it is often ignored by those on That Side of The Argument today, it was in fact Gene Himself who was constantly reminding everyone while TOS was in production that Starfleet was supposed to be a military. He didn't decide it wasn't a military until TWOK went into production and he lashed out at Bennett and Meyer's more overt and explicit militaristic depiction of Starfleet. But really, He was so desperate to discredit them that even if they had gone and shown Starfleet as some sort of pacifistic Future NASA, Gene would still have lashed out and said that was wrong and Starfleet should be a military.

Fair enough, I believe you it seems Roddenberry was more erratic with his franchise than even Lucas was with Star Wars.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Honestly the set of the Millennium Falcon hasn't really aged well either, and I say this as someone who's been at the reconstruction Smuggler's Run ride in Galaxy's Edge at Disneyland. The cockpit instruments on the Falcon are just as meaningless as the ones in TOS (I've also visited a TOS recreation set).

Yet you and others are obviously fine with the changes to the Enterprise, despite clashing with continuity, and claim that the Falcon's set is "higher budget" when actually it's also pretty shabby but many would probably complain if a Millennium Falcon tv show got DISCO/SNW'd (full of holograms and turned into an Apple store) while still justifying the change to TOS' bridge design in the same breath.

So I'm just going to say it--the colorful look of TOS' bridge is seen as immature and childish. There's a need to make it more "mature" with holographic iphone style interior design. The sets for the Millennium Falcon and other Rogue One type sets are already dark and gritty (which apparently correlates to audiences' minds as deep and serious and mature) so even though they're just as low budget design wise as TOS relatively speaking (yes ANH's movie budget was higher than TOS being a movie but Lucas/Fox was not exactly pouring all their money into ANH either, it was an experiment that had a budget) people accept them and would complain if they got changed.

The Falcon absolutely holds up much better compared to TOS’ cardboard sets. One was built to be seen on the big screen with a lot of detail to scrutinize, while TOS was made in mind for fuzzy television screens that weren’t likely to be any bigger than a 19 inch set, assuming it even had color. That’s why Disney can get away with it on their productions and Paramount had no choice but to update the sets to at least look like it’s a show set in our future, because TOS hasn’t looked like something set in our future since the 60s were left behind.

This is why they completely revamped the look of the ship in TMP along with… the Klingons!

 

[The Wormhole]

It also helps that in Star Wars, particularly in the Original Trilogy, much of what we saw was supposed to be outdated technology in-universe. Which is a key factor in why the modern productions can get away with replicating a 1970s aesthetic and have it accepted by modern viewers. Star Trek, on the other hand is constantly telling us the ships we see are state of the art and the most advanced around. You can't replicate 1960s futurism today and expect modern viewers to think of it as advanced. Hell, the only reason why Picard got away with faithfully replicating a set originally designed and built in the 1980s (which looks it by modern standards) was because they acknowledged in universe that it was an older and dated look.

 

[eschaton]

It also helps that in Star Wars, particularly in the Original Trilogy, much of what we saw was supposed to be outdated technology in-universe. Which is a key factor in why the modern productions can get away with replicating a 1970s aesthetic and have it accepted by modern viewers. Star Trek, on the other hand is constantly telling us the ships we see are state of the art and the most advanced around. You can't replicate 1960s futurism today and expect modern viewers to think of it as advanced. Hell, the only reason why Picard got away with faithfully replicating a set originally designed and built in the 1980s (which looks it by modern standards) was because they acknowledged in universe that it was an older and dated look.

I think, though, that retrofuturistic (as opposed to actual futuristic) design would be 100% understandable as just an aesthetic that the Federation went through in the 23rd century.

After all, human history is full of revivalism. Look at the number of U.S. civic and institutional buildings built during the 19th and early 20th century which attempt to ape Greco-Roman architecture. Or similar revivals, like Gothic and Italianate. Or art movements which have periodically brought back classicism.

All of this seems strange to us now because we've been stuck in a modernist/postmodernist aesthetic loop for around a century, but there's no reason to presume there won't be aesthetic movements in the future which try to harken back to past designs. So maybe it was just the case that 1960s-ish design was a big thing during the TOS era.

 

[Yistaan]

Hell, the only reason why Picard got away with faithfully replicating a set originally designed and built in the 1980s (which looks it by modern standards) was because they acknowledged in universe that it was an older and dated look.

Really? Because I don't remember anyone saying that until your comment just now (maybe you can link to where other people on here or reddit etc. said that?)

The early Fox X-Men movies made the same mistake. They said that 1960s/1970s designs of superheroes was so outdated that they needed to be wearing grimdark black leather. What did the Marvel Cinematic Universe do? They leaned hard on those 1960s era designs for their movies, to great audience success, to the point that Wolverine is now going to be wearing the supposedly outdated yellow spandex in the next Deadpool movie.

 

[fireproof78]

It also helps that in Star Wars, particularly in the Original Trilogy, much of what we saw was supposed to be outdated technology in-universe. Which is a key factor in why the modern productions can get away with replicating a 1970s aesthetic and have it accepted by modern viewers. Star Trek, on the other hand is constantly telling us the ships we see are state of the art and the most advanced around. You can't replicate 1960s futurism today and expect modern viewers to think of it as advanced. Hell, the only reason why Picard got away with faithfully replicating a set originally designed and built in the 1980s (which looks it by modern standards) was because they acknowledged in universe that it was an older and dated look.

Well, that and it created a warm sense of familiarity, which I think is more what people want anymore. It doesn't matter if it is futuristic or not as the more important thing is that it feels right to the audience. Right now, the audience wants the warm and familiar, and not anything more realistic or updated.

The other side is that the shows are not drawing in newer audiences but those who are already interested in the particular property. Marvel appeals to Marvel fans, Star Trek to Star Trek fans. It is not for the modern.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

If a vision of future technology created in 1987 built around touchscreens looks too dated to people in 2024, then anything we make now would look too dated in 2266. There's no way to make it look realistic and chasing modern aesthetics is counter productive. It's just trying to make the flashiest TV show instead of properly creating a world.

 

[eschaton]

If a vision of future technology created in 1987 built around touchscreens looks too dated to people in 2024, then anything we make now would look too dated in 2266. There's no way to make it look realistic and chasing modern aesthetics is counter productive. It's just trying to make the flashiest TV show instead of properly creating a world.

Honestly a "realistic" depiction of a a Starfleet vessel would likely be boring. I doubt there would be much resembling a bridge, as most everything would be heavily AI-assisted, if not sentient ships piloting themselves, with the humans more or less on perma-vacation.

To the extent they had interfaces, there would be a lot of VR/AR, which wouldn't translate well to the screen.

 

[Yistaan]

Honestly a "realistic" depiction of a a Starfleet vessel would likely be boring. I doubt there would be much resembling a bridge, as most everything would be heavily AI-assisted, if not sentient ships piloting themselves, with the humans more or less on perma-vacation.

We actually have seen entirely AI/droid piloted ships a few times in Star Wars tv shows and without spoiling too much, as recently as this week's new SW show the Acolyte.

 

[fireproof78]

Honestly a "realistic" depiction of a a Starfleet vessel would likely be boring. I doubt there would be much resembling a bridge, as most everything would be heavily AI-assisted, if not sentient ships piloting themselves, with the humans more or less on perma-vacation.

To the extent they had interfaces, there would be a lot of VR/AR, which wouldn't translate well to the screen.

Just like real world NCIS is rather boring compared to the show.

If a vision of future technology created in 1987 built around touchscreens looks too dated to people in 2024, then anything we make now would look too dated in 2266. There's no way to make it look realistic and chasing modern aesthetics is counter productive. It's just trying to make the flashiest TV show instead of properly creating a world.

Which is why Trek needs to separate itself, like Fallout or For All Mankind, as a distinct separate timeline from our own world. The constant trying to connect to being our future is what causes this chase.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It also helps that in Star Wars, particularly in the Original Trilogy, much of what we saw was supposed to be outdated technology in-universe. Which is a key factor in why the modern productions can get away with replicating a 1970s aesthetic and have it accepted by modern viewers. Star Trek, on the other hand is constantly telling us the ships we see are state of the art and the most advanced around. You can't replicate 1960s futurism today and expect modern viewers to think of it as advanced. Hell, the only reason why Picard got away with faithfully replicating a set originally designed and built in the 1980s (which looks it by modern standards) was because they acknowledged in universe that it was an older and dated look.

That and TNG at least had more foresight to present technology in a way that still looks and feels futuristic, with its glass panel touch screen tech. I think the only elements that can be seen as dated is the beige color scheme and tactical station’s wooden arch which just screams 80s aesthetics.

 

[Yistaan]

That and TNG at least had more foresight to present technology in a way that still looks and feels futuristic, with its glass panel touch screen tech. I think the only elements that can be seen as dated is the beige color scheme and tactical station’s wooden arch which just screams 80s aesthetics.

It still boils down to opinion as Nick Meyer demanded the touchscreen bridge of Star Trek 5 go back to physical control for ST6

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It still boils down to opinion as Nick Meyer demanded the touchscreen bridge of Star Trek 5 go back to physical control for ST6

Right, because Nick Meyer can’t get past his own penchant for antiquated iconography, like having Uhura scrambling with a pile of old Klingon books to read off of, as if that can’t be accomplished by having the computer display it on screen for her. IIRC, when he took the gig for TWOK he really wanted to redesign the bridge to resemble something more like the Nostromo from ALIEN, but that was out of the question at the time given budget constraints.

There’s a moment in TOS I like where Kirk finds his attorney surrounding himself with piles of books and notes how that’s kind of a bizarre thing because most people in that time would just have most of their reading library in computer storage. It’s a nice way of telling us how far we’ve come technology wise. It also sets up the idea of books being more of a niche, as we’d later see Picard having his own small collection of books.

 

[The Wormhole]

Really? Because I don't remember anyone saying that until your comment just now

Geordi stated in the episode that the ship's age prevented it from being able to connect with the Borg network that had connected all the other Starfleet ships.

Just like real world NCIS is rather boring compared to the show.

Indeed, the real NCIS only investigates an average of seven homicides a year, across the entire agency. Meanwhile in the shows we can see three separate field offices each investigating two dozen homicides per year. Not to mention the real NCIS doesn't actually employ its own medical examiners or forensics techs.

 

[Yistaan]

Geordi stated in the episode that the ship's age prevented it from being able to connect with the Borg network that had connected all the other Starfleet ships.

Indeed, the real NCIS only investigates an average of seven homicides a year, across the entire agency. Meanwhile in the shows we can see three separate field offices each investigating two dozen homicides per year. Not to mention the real NCIS doesn't actually employ its own medical examiners or forensics techs.

I meant i don't remember any grumbling tng bridge was outdated and only calmed by in universe dialogue the way there supposedly would be a revolt if they brought back the "outdated " tos bridge

 

[The Wormhole]

I meant i don't remember any grumbling tng bridge was outdated and only calmed by in universe dialogue the way there supposedly would be a revolt if they brought back the "outdated " tos bridge

That's not what I was saying in the first place.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Another thing is that the Enterprise D bridge is fairly esoteric in design compared to other Starfleet bridges of that era. I think we only see two other Galaxy class ships with that bridge design, and then there’s the Odyssey which looked more like a conventional Starfleet bridge. That makes it highly unlikely we’ll see a STRANGE NEW WORLDS equivalent of TNG with an “updated” Enterprise D bridge.

 

[Tosk]

because Nick Meyer can’t get past his own penchant for antiquated iconography

Just as some can't let go of the freestanding holographic interfaces, even with all the visibility and operation concerns. Swings and roundabouts.