Really?
I was 24.
You know, I firmly believe people can be grumpy old chaps at any age. Especially in SF fandom.
I don't understand the production design...
- Thread starter Arpy
- Start date
You know, I firmly believe people can be grumpy old chaps at any age. Especially in SF fandom.
The bulge ones were Theiss again I think. Justman comes on later.
They're reusing a Discovery shuttle as both a school bus in the next Short Trek and Picard's ride in the new series. If endlessly recycling props and sets isn't the authentic Star Trek look, I don't know what is.
Shh no one wants to hear a real life explanation that actually makes senseI do hope folks remember that the carpeting used for TNG was specifically so that the floor of the set didn't interfere with the sound recording of the actors voices when they were walking around the ramps and such.
Most sets used on a sound stage are mainly made of wood, which tends to start getting squeaky after prolonged use.
Carpeting is the industry standard for decreasing and/or eliminating that problem.
(it also eliminates the problem of actors slipping down uncarpeted ramps)
Well I do hope that style comes back sooner than later
Somehow, I don't think 'Sexy' is ever going to go out of style.
(at least not while Humans are still using 'physical sex' for reproduction)
I believe both of those things may be in the pipeline.
So, for you the proper 24th century aesthetic looks like the inside of a Princess Cruise line ship; or Hilton hotel lobby?
Yeah, comfy - like somewhere you'd want to live. I'd certainly rather work on the bridge of the D rather than in the cavernous and strangely lit Discovery bridge.
In TNG, the ship wasn't a warship. Sure, she had the capability to go into battle, but ostensibly, the show was about scientists in space with some rather loose naval discipline. I wish that the series would go back to being based around some real science. It's why I'm loving Lost In Space so much, they solve their problems in a rational, science based way - for sure there's some crazy stuff in there, but at least there is some grounding in reality.
This show better show the Angel One city on a completely different planet or I am so totally boycotting!
Nah. If the writing is bad and the story is shit, that is a disaster.
Safe and familiar is what sells.
Isn’t it funny how these days were all marketing VP’s for the company? Although I care that it sells, I don’t care that it sells. I’m talking about what I, a fan, like, on a fan board.
And what I think would sell to other fans. I mean, they’re departing from the path that sold spectacularly in the past, to go on a new meh-er one.
That's all well and good but there is real world considerations that balance my fan desires. So, yes, safe and familiar is what sells and Hollywood is more risk adverse. I don't need a marketing degree to observe trends.
Fans speak a good game but haven't demonstrated a willingness to purchase it. So, that's the rub.
I mean, fan films went down the darker more grittier path long before DSC got accused of being "grimdark." Fan films explored ideas of war, and trauma and loss. So, if anything, CBS went the path that fans supposedly wanted. And yet, there is this neverending litany of complaints of them missing the point of Star Trek...
It's about the execution. Star Trek hasn't been utopian since TNG, so it's always been a variation of "grimdark".I mean, fan films went down the darker more grittier path long before DSC got accused of being "grimdark." Fan films explored ideas of war, and trauma and loss. So, if anything, CBS went the path that fans supposedly wanted. And yet, there is this neverending litany of complaints of them missing the point of Star Trek...
Discovery really hasn't executed well. We'll know soon enough about Picard.
"Point on the model to where all the beige touched you."
Don't forget the go-go boots!
STAR TREK does not exist in a timeless bubble. It's always going to reflect the times in which it's produced.
Last edited:
Maybe not "utopian" but I don't think I'd call VOY or ENT "grimdark" except for "Year of Hell" and the Xindi War. I wouldn't call the Abrams Films "grimdark" either. I'd say they occupy some sort of middle ground.
But it's kind of funny that all the Star Trek I'm a fan of, after TNG, is "grimdark". I swear that's not intentional.
"Grimdark"? 
I've never seen one canon example of Star Trek being "grimdark."
I've never seen one canon example of Star Trek being "grimdark."
