If Discovery looked like this:
It would be a fan film. Which is what the picture's from.
If Discovery looked like this, it would obviously be a pre-refit Constitution-class starship. Which it is not.
Last edited:
If Discovery was set ten year before *anything* TOS, would it make more sense?
- Thread starter Mark_Nguyen
- Start date
If Discovery looked like this, it would obviously be a pre-refit Constitution-class starship. Which it is not.
Looks like IKEA built a starship.
I think something similar (but not identical) to the TMP or TUC bridges but with computer interfaces similar to what we saw in Enterprise (particularly TATV) would make more sense. With plenty of colorful, illuminated buttons and switches. There's no need for a bridge that looks like it was actually built in the 1960's, but to me it feels like they could have done a much better job of faithfully reimagining the TOS era look than what we've seen so far. In terms of faithful reimaginings, Doctor Who regularly nails it, so I'm pretty sure it can be done.
While I don't dislike the Franklin/Kelvin design style (which I think DSC evokes quite effectively), I agree that to NX/TMP intermediary style would also have worked).
So then what you're saying is that you understood the point I was trying to make, but felt the need to unnecessarily troll anyway?
Last edited:
If Discovery looked like this:
It would be a fan film. Which is what the picture's from.
But it wouldn't need to look like that to be a stylistic fit with what came before. Heck, someone changed the color scheme of the Shenzou bridge and uniforms and it made it actually feel like something modern that could have been concurrent with "The Cage".
It didn't look cheesy or cheap, it looked like "Star Trek". There are a lot of people out there who seem to be ashamed of it.
So… you wouldn't mind if DSC did look like TOS or The Cage. Visuals being window dressing and all.
What I'm saying is I understood your point but disagreed with it and used your example to prove my argument.
Disagreeing with your point doesn't equal trolling.
It wouldn't bother me.
You weren't disagreeing with my point. You were acting as if you couldn't understand my point and then took things out of context by incessantly posting pics of Daleks and Cybermen in an effort to win a dick-measuring contest with me even though you really did understand my point. Are you happy now that your dick is longer?
You're blending two issues into one. No one is ashamed of what Trek looked like, but the show is about being progressive not being what it already has been. Discovery looks like "Star Trek" it just doesn't look like the Pilots 1/1 which is what some fans are freaking out about. The photoshopped image you're referring to however did look campy. The goal of any Trek show is not to mimic what came before it. Sure throwbacks are aplenty but all in all the goal is to show what the future will look like in relationship to what we see today and provide a compelling story that draws an audience into the adventures of a crew. Don't get me wrong I love TOS for what it is and I appreciate that in 1966 it was aiming to show viewers what the future could be like but that's no different than Metropolis back in the 1920's attempted to show what the future could be like. It's 2017 and the future is going to look radically different then what Star Trek was back in 1966. Star Trek fans have this bad habit of becoming too protective of something that doesn't need protection. Whether it's TOS fans losing it over TNG, fans hating on Sisko and Janeway, or how a lot of fans didn't even want to consider ENT canon in the prime. It's just a unique cycle that seems to keep repeating.
Oh I like visuals. I'm a very visual person. But they aren't why I watch Star Trek. They're just the icing on the cake.You can always go listen to a Star Trek radio drama.
Modern Doctor Who respects its past and consistently, explicitly and consciously references it. When it uses a classic Who design, whether it's something major like Davros, the Daleks, the Mondasian Cybermen or something small like the K-9 unit or the War Doctor's sonic screwdriver, new Who always looks like it did back in the 60's and 70's and doesn't try to retcon it. Modern Dr Who's producers aren't ashamed of the past but have embraced it. BBC even produced a special docudrama with the First Doctor to celebrate the 50th year anniversary of Doctor Who, besides its special episode.
Exactly as Star Trek had done so far. It also respected and referenced TOS in the past. TNG, a '80s/'90s series, showed the TOS Enterprise bridge in "Relics". DS9, a '90s series, showed the TOS uniforms and K-7 station in "Trials and Tribble-ations". ENT, a '00s series, showed the TOS Constitution-class starship and uniforms in "In a Mirror, Darkly". So it's not about modern production values either.
Thus it's you the one that doesn't understand the point I'm making and/or are trolling. Fair enough, conversation over.
Last edited:
The Prime universe has shown what the mid-23rd century looks like time after time in shows outside of TOS.
Discovery, to me, looks nothing like how Trek depicts the 23rd century. Which is fair enough, new people are going to want to put their stamp both visually and narratively on what Star Trek is. I think it is fair enough that I treat the show as a reboot and judge it according to those standards. Which are: does it feel like Trek? And is it entertaining?
Neither to me. But it looks exactly like how ENT depicted the 22nd century. I even suggested it in my original post in this thread before this whole Dr.Who debate/debacle.
Which you felt the need to blow out of proportion for some strange reason, when it had nothing to do with the OP, and apparently still feel the need to do. So I wouldn't be throwing the trolling card around if I were you.
Last edited:
It's real evident by now who's the one that's continuously blowing things out of proportion and insulting/flaming/trolling.
Last edited:
How characteristic. Devoid of arguments and resorting to petty insults yet again.
