Strange New Worlds set design?

[Ricky Spanish]

I dunno, seems to me that more than a few longtime fans really dig the designs. Hell, I've got almost 40 years as a fan, and I know people on here who have decades on that. I guess we're all the lowest common denominator?

For me, CBS Trek live-action bridges are just all interchangeable dank caverns that look like they are designed for stage plays instead of believable command centers of futuristic spaceships. Mileage obviously varies.

The Abrams 1701 is probably my favorite live-action 21st century Trek bridge. Outside of TOS, the Protostar is probably my favorite bridge.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

It is easier to create something appealing for the lowest common denominator than it is to honor fidelity.

The whole ‘I’m intellectually superior and that’s why I can appreciate stuff’ angle is not a good look for you.

 

[Rose Harper]

It is easier to create something appealing for the lowest common denominator than it is to honor fidelity.

 

[Fire(BOO!)]

It is easier to create something appealing for the lowest common denominator than it is to honor fidelity.

Really not helping your case by taking the pompous superiority route here.

 

[Sketcher]

These arguments are gonna be more wild in twenty years when we have the Captain April series with an even biggerer and more advanced-looking Enterprise.

 

[Mudd]

I've been watching this thing since 1966. Love the SNW designs.

 

[Richard S. Ta]

The SNW designs are what the Enterprise looked like in GR’s head circa 1966.

Probably.

Except better.

 

[Ragitsu]

Yuri and Kei? Nice.

 

[Ronald Held]

High production values, but SNW sets are not what to be expected before WNMHGB.

 

[Rose Harper]

High production values, but SNW sets are not what to be expected before WNMHGB.

Why not? They were never going to do a 1:1 duplication of the sets from the Sixties. We saw what the "TOS" era looks like in the SNW S4 finale.

Spoiler

It didn't look like TOS

 

[Tuskin38]

High production values, but SNW sets are not what to be expected before WNMHGB.

These sets are what we see in WNMHGB.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

High production values, but SNW sets are not what to be expected before WNMHGB.

Yeah I don't think anyone can say that the production values aren't there. They nailed that bit at least.

 

[CampBOO!]

It’s a modern take on a 1960s set. From that perspective, I think it looks phenomenal.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s a modern take on a 1960s set. From that perspective, I think it looks phenomenal.

Largely because Star Trek was meant to be a futuristic idea of a new century. Each design element would reflect the era it was made in. So, I would expect a show to reflect a modern interpretation.

 

[Ronald Held]

What we see in the last S4 episode is an alternate future, not TOS.

 

[Rose Harper]

What we see in the last S4 episode is an alternate future, not TOS.

If you want it to be. Other folks, not so much. "We" isn't really accurate.

 

[Ronald Held]

Scott was dead in that future. He is alive in TOS.

 

[David cgc]

Scott was dead in that future. He is alive in TOS.

Only the parts while Scotty was dead were an alternate timeline. Everything up to the shuttle explosion, and after the rewind at the end, when Uhura, Ortegas, and Scotty all beam back safely, really happened.

 

[Yistaan]

Only the parts while Scotty was dead were an alternate timeline. Everything up to the shuttle explosion, and after the rewind at the end, when Uhura, Ortegas, and Scotty all beam back safely, really happened.

Kirk starting his 5 year mission early seems off though? Or maybe MA's calendar is wrong and S4 was already in 2264? Or Kirk gets a 'shakedown cruise' prior to his 'actual' 5 year mission?

 

[Mudd]

What we see in the last S4 episode is an alternate future, not TOS.

Nope.

This is a prequel to TOS. The End.