Does TOS Still Look Futuristic to You?

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I find, in many ways, that TOS has aged better than TNG. TNG seems to scream 1980s to me.

That is somewhat true. The era from the late 60s through at least the mid-70s is a sort of stylistic watershed for the latter part of the century. Despite some "mod" elements, much of TOS is in step with cinematic and television styles reaching at least as far back as the 1940s, so it's snugly in the mainstream in many respects. Men's hairstyles, for example (disregarding the sideburns).

In that regard it's probably just as well that Phase II was never made. If you look at a lot of the set and costume design for that - even the font selection for some of the promotional art - it is so-o-o "disco era." There's even a bit of it in ST:TMP.

 

[JarodRussell]

I find, in many ways, that TOS has aged better than TNG. TNG seems to scream 1980s to me.

And TOS doesn't scream 1960s?

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Much as I love the bridge as a visual experience, it has some problems.

- To get from the captain's chair to the elevator, Kirk had to take two steps down, turn 180 degrees, and then take two steps right back up again, and squeeze between the chair and the red railing. (The gap varies between episodes as the captain's chair was moved forward or back to accomodate a scene.) Or he could go the long way to the port-side bridge steps and double back for the whole distance to the elevator.

It is not any easier to get to the main turbolift on TNG's Enterprise. First, the entire rear of the command chairs are blocked by the cresent-shaped, elevated security station. This means Riker, Picard and Troi had to--as seen dozens of times--get up, walk forward, turn to walk up a ramp outside of the security section just to get to the turbolift. Not exactly a functional layout.

A bridge furnished like a living room is more impractical than the TOS bridge.

It famously lacked an emergency exit, but Franz Joseph showed how easy it would be to have a wall panel that opens so I don't consider that a big design issue.

At least TAS added a second lift--predating FZ's additions.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

No, because they respond to it with a built-in bias. Star Trek fans are inclined to like Star Trek (duh) and quite often rate it more highly in just about every respect than TV viewers and movie audiences in general do.

I have to disagree, if the near universal trashing of VOY, ENT and most of the TNG movies are any indicator. In many ways, ST fans were harder on ST's low points than Star Wars fans were about the troubled prequels.

 

[Mysterion]

Yes, but not our future. TOS looks futuristic to me the same way that Forbidden Planet still looks futuristic to me. They are just the futures of timelines that went a different direction than the one we live in.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

No, because they respond to it with a built-in bias. Star Trek fans are inclined to like Star Trek (duh) and quite often rate it more highly in just about every respect than TV viewers and movie audiences in general do.

I have to disagree, if the near universal trashing of VOY, ENT and most of the TNG movies are any indicator.

You're mistaken, and bias enters into it - looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. First, because the trashing of those shows was far from "universal" - just loud on the Internet - but more importantly only Trek fans cared about those productions as time passed. It was the hard-core audience that kept Voyager and Enterprise on for years and in the end it was only dedicated Trek fans who turned out for movies like Nemesis. Just about nobody who wasn't nuts about Trek bothered.

The inclination of fandom to like Star Trek was why these shows weren't cancelled in their first or second seasons. Again, Trek fans may have liked these things little, but the rest of the world had already tuned out.

Saying "the fact that Trek fans are critical means that they're not biased in favor of the Franchise" is like saying that Braves fans don't favor Atlanta - as proven by the fact that they bitch when the team plays poorly.

The number of people who got into Star Trek because of TNG was astonishing. At its height it was not as widely watched as TOS had been on NBC, but it was also largely a different group of people. Most folks who turned on NBC on Thursdays back in 66-69 did not continue to follow Trek into syndication; if they had, the studio would have moved on a movie/new series much faster than they did. Trek built a new audience in the 1970s around the nucleus of fans who wouldn't let it go when the network dropped it, and TNG built a considerable following of casual viewers beyond the fans who turned out for the early-80s TOS-based movies. That was never true for the TNG "sequels" - DS9 started dropping viewers in its second week, and the number of "oh, I like that show and watch it with my family" folks who'd made TNG into something of an early '90s phenomenon fell away year by year.

 

[aridas sofia]

I think that what gives TOS design its ongoing plausibility is its purposeful vagueness. There are no explanatory instructions on the communicator, phaser or tricorder. The consoles are very vague about what they do. We could go back and show someone on the TOS bridge bringing up a holographic display and it would make plenty of sense because there is enough room there to speculate about other purposes.

The painstaking detail taken in designing a set like the NX-01 bridge ends up being self defeating as the years roll by and all those things it says it does become more and more laughable as being things that would be done another way.

 

[Dale Sams]

I find, in many ways, that TOS has aged better than TNG. TNG seems to scream 1980s to me.

And TOS doesn't scream 1960s?

To me it screams 'Star Trek'. Despite the beehives and mini-skirts, it shares nothing with Twilight Zone, The Nanny and the Professor, The Big Valley (or other westerns), Rat Patrol, and doesn't particularly look like The Time Tunnel, Avengers, Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

It looks like Star Trek.

 

[TOSalltheway]

And TOS doesn't scream 1960s?

Of course it does, we are talking about how it aged.

 

[xortex]

It was minimalistic but who's to say what the world is gonna look like after WW9? It may look exctly like that. People only watched TNG for the stories and because it was the first direct sequal so people stuck with it to see if it would get better but it didn't. Other than that, all the other Trek incarnations sucked because their creators were no GRs. TOS was very specific and precise and the product of a singular vision unlike the other stuff which was an assembly line run by visionless asses up each other's asses in bed together like too many cooks. GR did what the Beatles and Shirley Temple did, something magical, mystical and miraculously gestalt like. Nothing compares to it in look, not even TZ.

 

[Joby]

I find, in many ways, that TOS has aged better than TNG. TNG seems to scream 1980s to me.

And TOS doesn't scream 1960s?

To me it screams 'Star Trek'. Despite the beehives and mini-skirts, it shares nothing with Twilight Zone, The Nanny and the Professor, The Big Valley (or other westerns), Rat Patrol, and doesn't particularly look like The Time Tunnel, Avengers, Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

It looks like Star Trek.

I don't want to turn this into a TNG vs. TOS debate, though it may head that direction, but I have to disagree that TOS has aged better then TNG. They have both aged IMHO.

Beehives and mini-skirts, sounds 60s to me. TNG sure does have a late 80s vibe going for it in those early seasons, especially with Geordi's VISOR, having a counselor on the ship and the general Hyatt Regency look of the Enterprise-D. Many of these asthetics even started to seem outdated by 1989, but TNG plowed forward with it through 1994. But TNG is just as Star Trek as TOS, it's not like I feel like I'm watching other 80s TV shows like Growing Pains, Perfect Strangers, L.A. Law or St. Elsewhere.

Though you could make a strong case for The Love Boat...

 

[Caje]

I find, in many ways, that TOS has aged better than TNG. TNG seems to scream 1980s to me.

I agree. I'm not sure why it is, but TNG definitely seems dated to me in comparison to TOS.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If you liked the photoshopped pics, THIS will blow your mind.

https://vimeo.com/12023417

Spockboy

Pretty damned amazing!

Seconded! Amazing. The George Lucas x10 -style TOS-R.

 

[Mysterion]

If you liked the photoshopped pics, THIS will blow your mind.

https://vimeo.com/12023417

Spockboy

That actually does not look too bad. Thanks for sharing that!

 

[Dale Sams]

And TOS doesn't scream 1960s?

To me it screams 'Star Trek'. Despite the beehives and mini-skirts, it shares nothing with Twilight Zone, The Nanny and the Professor, The Big Valley (or other westerns), Rat Patrol, and doesn't particularly look like The Time Tunnel, Avengers, Lost in Space or Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea.

It looks like Star Trek.

I don't want to turn this into a TNG vs. TOS debate, though it may head that direction, but I have to disagree that TOS has aged better then TNG. They have both aged IMHO.

Beehives and mini-skirts, sounds 60s to me. TNG sure does have a late 80s vibe going for it in those early seasons, especially with Geordi's VISOR, having a counselor on the ship and the general Hyatt Regency look of the Enterprise-D. Many of these asthetics even started to seem outdated by 1989, but TNG plowed forward with it through 1994. But TNG is just as Star Trek as TOS, it's not like I feel like I'm watching other 80s TV shows like Growing Pains, Perfect Strangers, L.A. Law or St. Elsewhere.

Though you could make a strong case for The Love Boat...

With TNG, I also feel like I'm watching Trek more than 'an 80's show'. Though (understandably) the 80's feel really stands out early. The VISOR, Geordi's flattop, Wesley's Cosby sweaters, the FX. Having Roz from LA Law and Max Headroom on the show.

But again, I feel like it's more Trek than 80's. Especially 3rd season and on.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I find, in many ways, that TOS has aged better than TNG. TNG seems to scream 1980s to me.

I agree. I'm not sure why it is, but TNG definitely seems dated to me in comparison to TOS.

That is the price of set design that was more living room than futuristic ship. Even the color scheme yells "domestic furnishing department." It lacked any sort of militaristic color, and the plush navigation chairs (among other features) looked like 1970's "bachelor pad" lounge seating.

 

[xortex]

I think the walls were rubbery and looked like built in closets. The bridge was too big and misshapen like Picard's head. It was a mess. The TOS bridge did look like a third grade classroom with the pictures of classic nebulas on the screens, but.. I guess they were screen savers.

 

[RAMA]

If you liked the photoshopped pics, THIS will blow your mind.

https://vimeo.com/12023417

Spockboy

Jaw drop..wow

RAMA

 

[scotpens]

I think the walls were rubbery and looked like built in closets. The bridge was too big and misshapen like Picard's head.

I've never been a big TNG fan and I hated the Enterprise-D bridge design, but I don't see anything wrong with the shape of Patrick Stewart's dome.

The TOS bridge did look like a third grade classroom with the pictures of classic nebulas on the screens, but.. I guess they were screen savers.

Very rarely, images would be back-projected onto one of the bridge perimeter screens (as in "Squire of Gothos"). IIRC, the effect was seldom used because of the time and expense of rigging slide projectors and because union rules required a man on the set just to operate the projector.

 

[BillJ]

I think the walls were rubbery and looked like built in closets. The bridge was too big and misshapen like Picard's head. It was a mess. The TOS bridge did look like a third grade classroom with the pictures of classic nebulas on the screens, but.. I guess they were screen savers.

I thought the bridge was roughly the size of its TOS counterpart?