It seems there is a reason for the visual reboot and the producers aren't being honest about it.

[PixelMagic]

@PixelMagic?

I did see concept art for these uniforms (gold, blue, red) in late 2016/early 2017, but I don't know if they were actually physically made before now. The concept art looked pretty much identical to what we saw in the new Season 2 production videos, except the collars were also shirt colored (gold, blue, red) instead of black.

 

[cooleddie74]

To fit in with the TOS pilot aesthetic I'd have made the collars the same color as the shirts. They don't have to be ribnecked but the same color as the rest of the pullover would have tied in more seamlessly (no pun intended) with the 2254-65 timeframe. For what they are, though, I like them.

 

[Donker]

Didn't Fuller say they originally had coloured uniforms but the studio mandated the change to blue pyjamas?

Couldn't possibly be that people make what they genuinely think is the best creative/aesthetic choice for the show they're making now, and genuinely view it as prime timeline.

Hahahaha no. A lot of it is BAD design. Dark blue and silver interiors and dark navy blue and metallic uniforms? If they actually think that is a good creative or aesthetic choice they should be fired and never hired again in any design field ever. The design in general of the show is just absolutely bleh and generic, overall and Eaves has done far, FAR better design work than the garbage generic video game ship designs we got with Discovery.

 

[cultcross]

Hahahaha no. A lot of it is BAD design.

Which is your opinion, and irrelevant to my point, which is that the people making it genuinely think they're making the best show they can, and aren't engaged in 'malice' or 'apathy' as the preceding posts suggested.

 

[Donker]

Which is your opinion

It's not opinion, it's basic colour theory.

which is that the people making it genuinely think they're making the best show they can

If they are, that is incredibly sad and again, they should be fired and never be allowed to work in design ever again.

and aren't engaged in 'malice' or 'apathy' as the preceding posts suggested.

Discovery is a corporate product designed by suits who ARE largely apathetic. Do you honestly believe this show's executive producers really care that much about Star Trek? This is Alex Kurtzman and Avika Goldsman. They're some of the biggest hacks in Hollywood and are typically brought onto projects to create a lowest common denominator cashgrab.

Discovery exists for one reason, to push CBS All Access. Also it isn't that hard to believe there is some level of Malice from Moonves considering the man hates Star Trek and in a meeting on Enterprise didn't even know what a deck was.

 

[cultcross]

Discovery is a corporate product designed by suits who ARE largely apathetic.

They certainly spend a lot of time gushing about Star Trek for people who are apathetic suits. I don't recall Berman, Braga, or even Roddenberry going on and on about it like this while it was still on the air.

 

[Jinn]

Discovery exists for one reason, to push CBS All Access.

As opposed to TAS which existed because Roddenberry wanted to make money of of Star Trek, TNG which existed because the movies were popular at the time and Voyager which existed to push UPN. It's almost as if we live in a capitalist society.

 

[Donker]

Except TAS and TNG were created by Roddenberry and he viewed them as his creative children and Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise were executive produced by his deeply invested apprentices. TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were passion projects by people enamoured by Genes vision and world as much as they were products.

Star Trek Discovery exists because CBS is a network for geriatrics and boomers and they needed something to draw in the "YOOF" to CBS All Access so they turned Star Trek into a generic grimdark sci-fi show. They then bring on two of the biggest hacks in Hollywood to do that.

They certainly spend a lot of time gushing about Star Trek for people who are apathetic suits.

Too bad they're a bunch of hacks who don't understand Star Trek on any fundamental level. Crap like After Trek is just marketing.

 

[cultcross]

Discovery exists for one reason, to push CBS All Access.

All TV is a product to generate revenue.

Moonves considering the man hates Star Trek and in a meeting on Enterprise didn't even know what a deck was.

TV executive not a nerd; greenlights nerdy show anyway. Film at 11.

 

[Donker]

All TV is a product to generate revenue.

Stop being this obtuse.

TV executive not a nerd; greenlights nerdy show anyway. Film at 11.

TV executive who was very involved with Enterprise and cancelling it despite it had actually okay ratings and is well known for hating Star Trek.

 

[cultcross]

And yet we have a new Star Trek show to launch the network's streaming service. Funny way of showing hatred.

 

[Donker]

Because CBS needed something to draw younger audiences onto All Access, what else were they going to use? Young Sheldon?
The fact though Discovery is very much Star Trek In Name Only shows though they most likely don't think very highly of the franchise or it's appeal beyond brand recognition. This is why it was also set during the TOS era, so they can drag out Spock and eventually Kirk and McCoy for name recognition.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

It's amazing how hate can impair one's judgement.

 

[Jinn]

Except TAS and TNG were created by Roddenberry and he viewed them as his creative children

He also decanonized one of them and references to it were only possible once Roddenberry died.

and Voyager, DS9 and Enterprise were executive produced by his deeply invested apprentices. TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise were passion projects by people enamoured by Genes vision and world as much as they were products.

There are absolutely people who are passionate about all these series, but so the people who are making Discovery. And one of these shows was made to promote a network. Getting greenlight for finanical reasons and being made by passionate people aren't mutally exclusive.

Too bad they're a bunch of hacks who don't understand Star Trek on any fundamental level. Crap like After Trek is just marketing.

Kirsten Beyer is among the writers so there is at least one person who genuinly loves Star Trek on there. That being said I doubt that no one involved understands Star Trek in any way.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I doubt that no one involved understands Star Trek in any way.

But if you happen to hate the show so much that it's all you want to talk about, of course you'll want to find even more reasons to hate it even if it's just rumors! Just look at staunch Republicans and their reactions to Obama over ANYTHING during his presidency.

 

[Refuge]

It's amazing how hate can impair one's judgement.

That's a dumb comment.

 

[Tuskin38]

It's not opinion, it's basic colour theory.

Opinion

If they are, that is incredibly sad and again, they should be fired and never be allowed to work in design ever again.

No.

That's a dumb comment.

It can apply to you as well.

 

[Mudd]

Which is your opinion, and irrelevant to my point, which is that the people making it genuinely think they're making the best show they can...

Some are...ithin the strictures laid down by those "apathetic suits," who are able and apparently willing to overrule and redirect the creative decisions of the production people at any time with no pushback.

And no, "in other words like every other TV series" does not cut it in this case. The degree of autonomy exercised by showrunners, especially in the streaming arena, varies a great deal. Amazon rather famously ponies up the money and stays out of the creative process - it's not where their business expertise is - as, supposedly, does Netflix. The thinking at All Access appears to be that of old-line broadcast network people - executives at the most conservative of the once-Big Three, at that - trying to swim in unfamiliar waters. The worst of both worlds, to borrow a phrase.

 

[roneill]

the people making it genuinely think they're making the best show they can

I'm not sure how you can know that, unless you've got some insight into their minds that the rest of us haven't.

 

[cultcross]

I'm not sure how you can know that, unless you've got some insight into their minds that the rest of us haven't.

I don't, but plenty of people seem to be happy to assume the opposite. It seems reasonable to me to assume people making creative choices are doing so for genuine reasons unless we can demonstrate otherwise.