Are we Losing our cool now?
Not at all. Curious why you'd assume that, from what other posters clearly understood as being a light-hearted way of making a point. Oh well...
The difference between a movie about WWII and Star Trek is WWII Really happened and there are still P-38's in flying condition right now.
But for most audience members, they'd never have sat in a P-38, nor even likely ever seen one in person. And almost none of them would personally have ever seen one flying in combat during WWII.So, the look of the aircraft is part of what makes for the sense of it really being in the era... not the era the film is being shot in, but rather the era which is being portrayed. Right?Well, the first portion of that is correct... it hasn't happened (at least not from our "linear" perspective). But as for "the look of the future changes," that's a really odd statement. You state that as though it's somehow a scientifically-provable point. Almost as though it's a FACT. Of course, that's not true at all. Instead, what you're actually saying, I think, is that "since there are no records from the future, we can make it up to be whatever we want it to be, according to our particular stylistic "fashion sense."
Which is true, to an extent. If you create a new world set at some point in the future... if you're portraying something that the audience isn't already familiar with... you can portray it any way you like, based upon your personal sense of "fashion."No, it's not. However, audiences are more familiar with the style of Star Trek (TOS or otherwise) than they are with the style of many real historical periods, aren't they?
Any time you portray something which the audience is already familiar with and say that it's not like the audience already knows it is... you're creating a situation where the audience will inevitably be drawn out of their ability to suspend disbelief.
Like showing an F-35 in the place of a P-38. The F-35 might look better, or more advanced, or whatever... but it's not what the audience already knows they're SUPPOSED to see.
It's science fiction and as the techonlogy to show the future matures so should the look ouf our future.
Well, as far as we know, our "future" may end in just a few years, with a giant asteroid impact or something like that. We're not actually talking about "our future" at all, are we?
Nobody is, or ever has, argued that there isn't room for upgrading or improvement, using better construction techniques or incorporating improved technologies. Only that improvements should be made in terms of building upon the foundation that's already there... not tearing that up and creating something totally new and telling the audience that they have to accept that it's "the way it is from now on."
BTW the Enterprise model was generic since the USED IT FOR 90 PERCENT OF THE FED SHIPS IN THE SHOW.......
And that's how you define "generic?"
No... if they used the same ship on other shows, in other movies... if it wasn't specifically, and instantly, recognizable as being UNIQUE to Star Trek... that would make it "generic."
A "rocketship" would have been "generic."
***********
Look, I'm unhappy with this "redesign." Not because it "looks bad" or even "it doesn't look like Star Trek," but because it contradicts what we've seen. Gabe's design got a lot of criticism for deviating from the original, and as he altered it to look more like the original, the reaction got more positive. Vektor's version has gotten almost unanimous praise, as have several others. You can change stuff and still have it "feel" like the same ship. If you squint, you don't really notice that it's not the same, only that it's more "real."
If they really wanted a new ship, they could have had the flick set on some other ship.
