Kurtzman has nothing to do with the show's aesthetic.
If he could veto a design, we wouldn't have seen the TOS connie in Prodigy, Lower Decks, or Picard.
Spoilers Canon, Continuity, and Pike's Accident
- Thread starter CorporalCaptain
- Start date
If he could veto a design, we wouldn't have seen the TOS connie in Prodigy, Lower Decks, or Picard.
That's because Star Wars and Alien are fanatically beloved for their visual style as much as anything else. While Star Trek has the reputation (wrongly) of being made for $1.95 and is barely a step up from 1970's Doctor Who.
I'll take Alien in the same bucket as Star Trek. The user interfaces are so cryptic and not really based on anything in the real world that you can do ANYTHING with them. But Hawley has chosen to not see that as a limitation but is going to work with it. Now if he goes with displays that are still 280 x 192 resolution? I'm sure it might look pretty but...
My favorite approach to this has been Rogue One where the visual displays are 1970's in style but they mostly aren't what was actually possible in the 1970's but simply what was in the movies. But they still take a set of schematics that is so massive that it needs an entire communications array to get to a spaceship in orbit yet fits on a punchcard sized disc thingy that can be handed to a person (and put into a droid).
As for the dream of the end of SNW being "our" Enterprise? Why would they (in universe) make the ship so much smaller? OTOH, if they want to give it an aesthetic look that is closer to TOS, go nuts.
As much as I love some of the sets, it would have been interesting if they had tried to see the possibilities of a more cramped ship. Less TNG and more WWII. (Gee, what show tried to do that?) But still with the visual advancements that SNW brings to the table. Give me a viewscreen three times as wide on the same size bridge as TOS and the movies had. I'm there for it.
Space 1999?
One of the key difference is not once does Alien make the claim that they are supposed to be at the leading edge of technology. Indeed, given the intentional "lived in and wearing out" look they gave the interiors of the Nostromo, you can tell the ship is meant to be one that has some history, it's not the newest or the best or anything like that at all. Similar to Star Wars, at least on the original trilogy where the ships and technology are stated in universe to be old and outdated. That's why those franchises can get away with replicating their 1970s aesthetic and have it be accepted by modern audiences. Star Trek on the other hand is constantly telling us the technology we see there is brand new, state of the art, newer than a newborn baby. You can not faithfully replicate the 1960s aesthetic of TOS and expect modern audiences to look at that and think it's state of the art anything.
I'm still at a bit of a loss.
I would say minor. The whole bridge set didn't alter around her, nor did anyone else.
It was probably more Fuller, and they've just run with his design preference ever since. Kurtzman is likely quite relaxed about it all.
I'm always happy to find a compromise between being true to an established aesthetic and adding more detail. Rogue One and Andor managed that beautifully and I can fully believe that there is more tech behind those simplistic-appearing mechanisms than I'll ever be able to understand. It's the same with the "jelly beans" in TOS, they'll never truly date because I don't understand what they are.
Also, the perceived size difference between the TOS Enterprise and SNW version isn't necessarily a big factor. The USS Cayuga had TOS dimensions when it appeared on a graphic display in Hegemony, and there have been other examples too. If we stick to the principle that only on screen information is canon, then its acceptable to suggest that the SNW Enterprise is simultaneously 442m and 288m.
Kurtzman's not going anywhere in the next year or so.
You see, I think you can. I think you could've reproduced the TOS aesthetic with sharper detail, more functionality and better materials. I'm not asking for vaseline over the lense or anything, I can absolutely see that certain aspects just wouldn't work. The only real limitation is the ability of the set designer.
I still regard the SNW ship interior with high regard, especially the new galley's wonderful mid-century look and I really don't expect much more to be altered from what we got in DSC S1. At least, in the interior of the ship.
Star Trek has always updated tech to the production era. Comparing it to Star Wars or Alien is a fools errand because Star Treks conceit is that this is our future, our understanding of technology and supposed to be cutting edges.
It is not an imagined historical period or it's own universe. It is connected to our universe far more than any other example.
It's why it's malleable and treating it like it needs faithful recreation is a fools errand.
It is not an imagined historical period or it's own universe. It is connected to our universe far more than any other example.
It's why it's malleable and treating it like it needs faithful recreation is a fools errand.
There's really no particular reason why they couldn't have made something significantly closer to a TOS look while still looking "connected to our universe". They chose to set it in a part of the established world that already had a defined look, in that case actually making very much akin to a period piece. There was absolutely no reason they had to do that.
It's really just a disappointing lack of creative vision.
We just have to agree to disagree on this one. Star Trek is really just generic sci-fi with the fortune of longevity.
Alien's conceit is that its our future too, just not a very nice one. Exploitation and corporate greed is far more familiar to the human race than a post-scarcity utopia.
We all want the latter, but making it happen is easier said than done.
I don't disagree. I think Star Trek is very generic scifi with the optimistic view on human growth and potential being what sets it apart. But, I think treating it like a period piece is not the way the franchise has treated itself, and if it has, it's been inconsistently.
It's a disappointing lack of creative vision to not slavishly recreate the past?
Agree to disagree at this point. I don't treat Trek as a period piece, period.
Now play fair. This is the Nostromo's viewscreenI don't really think it's fair to use Alien as an example of a franchise sticking with an aesthetic, compared to Trek updating their look.
I mean..... come on.
Comparing Alien and Star Trek just makes me cringe.
Alien is a garbage horror franchise.
Alien is a garbage horror franchise.
Trek has always looked like what ever decade it was produced in when it comes to sets and VFX. People can headcanon that show in-universe technological advancements, but I'm sure the designers did not have that in mind. They just wanted to use the best they could afford to look futuristic.I don't disagree. I think Star Trek is very generic scifi with the optimistic view on human growth and potential being what sets it apart. But, I think treating it like a period piece is not the way the franchise has treated itself, and if it has, it's been inconsistently.
It's a disappointing lack of creative vision to not slavishly recreate the past?
Agree to disagree at this point. I don't treat Trek as a period piece, period.
I think it's clear that this graphic from TOS
And this one from SNW
Represent the same technology.
Both ships are the same size, regardless of which size you prefer (but the larger makes more sense in SNW and TOS).
Oh, what about the Bridge between 4 and 5? We were clearly not supposed to notice the wholesale redesign, especially given the short in universe time gap, compared to ST6.
If he gets let go it's because Ellison doesn't like him personally, not because of the his job performance
Not a slavish recreation, but out of limitations comes creativity. The SNW design team has restricted themselves to a mid century TOS inspired design ethic, and are doing great work with it. But they could have actually kept the physical shapes of the consoles and corridors and such the same as TOs and been just as successful in those restrictions.
I think it's clear that this graphic from TOS
And this one from SNW
Represent the same technology.
But the quality difference is presentation, not the actual graphic design, I could recreate the EXO III exactly in Illustrator, with a nice crisp photo of a planet, and with readable text and project it on a monitor with a true black background and it would look just as good as the SNW example. The only reason the first looks old is because it's blurry and lacks contrast.
How?
I would welcome people to do this. It's a fascinating, incredibly so, lesson in what people find value in. I would love, truly, to see the fans who claim that this would be as or more successful if TOS were treated as a historical period, warts and all, and recreate SNW within the same framework.
This fascinates me.
The STV bridge module was waiting in Spacedock, and you should've seen the look on the fitter's face when Kirk went to see what she's got.
It might be fair to say? Only you can really say.
His comments don't surprise me. It's consistent with current trends.
I wasn't referring to the quality of the presentation. Which is fine. The fact it's blurry and lacks contrast is also fine. I'm sure the actual piece of art used was not blurry. I actually wish TOS had used more of this type of thing. But it is a very "1960s" representation of an information display.
Similar threads
