• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Revising the old computer props (???)

Wingsley

Commodore
Commodore
I got a kick out of the recent multi-part series Omega Section / TrekCore blog postings about the TOS computer props. It really was neat seeing them. TOS' makers treated the idea of a "desktop PC" like a big, desktop-mounted mechanical calculator from a bygone era.

I noticed in ENT's "In a Mirror, Darkly" part 2, that while the Starship Defiant's sets were clearly an attempt to recapture/revive the TOS atmosphere, there were some interesting, if subtle, alterations. IIRC, the "desktop monitor" prop in the captain's quarters, and the triangular monitor on the Briefing Room conference table were both resized. Both captured the essence of what the actual TOS props looked like, but both seemed redesigned for 21st-century computing sensibilities.

I was wondering if anyone had ever tried to do the same thing with the "PC" props as well. One logical question comes to mind about the very notion of TOS-era hardware: what does a futuristic computer on a starship look like? With smartphones evolving as they are, it not unreasonable to regard a tricorder of a kind of multi-function machine with a built-in computer of sorts; same goes for other field equipment like the hand-talkie communicators.

But just what are those TOS breadboxes with all the blinkies that people keep talking to... and getting Majel Roddenberry's voice to report from??? Are they just uber-desktop minitowers? Is that what a starship's "computer" is, a series of networked minitowers? Or are they something more than that? Could those breadboxes be servers? If so, what would Chief Humbolt's refrigerator-sized machines be? Would that room on Starbase 11 be their idea of a server farm?

These kind of questions naturally come up when I review a topic like this.

If we assume, for sake of argument, that a breadbox machine is an actual field-equipment-issue desktop PC, then how should it be re-imagined/revised for "In a Mirror, Darkly" part 2, assuming they needed to show one in the story? Would it still be breadbox-sized, or would it have to be resized or otherwise reshaped in some way? I think about that, and the image I imagine would be shaped like a somewhat larger version of the briefing room's table-top intercoms, only with a beige body and blinkies instead of a big speaker grille. Maybe they would be portable, so the I.T. crew could carry one into a ship's room, set it on a table, and have it automatically connect to the ship's LAN, power, and the room's A/V systems.

Another, perhaps cheesier design might be to re-scale the TOS breadbox to a fraction of its size.

Any other ideas? Has anyone ever tried to use computer artwork to envision something like this?
 
Hey, thanks for linking those articles! There's been an ongoing thread at the DAZ 3D site devoted to fans sculpting digital Trek props that can be used in a variety of rendering tools (though specialized for Poser and DAZ|Studio). These articles with their crisp visual references will be invaluable to the various modelers in trhat discussion.

Sincerely,

Bill
 
Does anyone have any clear screencaps of "In a Mirror, Darkly" part 2, showing the triangular Briefing Room viewer and also the desktop monitor in the captain's quarters, just for reference?
 
Yeah, I peaked on TrekCore's screencaps area for ENT after I posted that. I wonder if anyone has any better photographs of that ep's props. Probably not.

The Briefing Room table viewer looks kinda cheesy now, like something that you would expect to run Windows 98. If that ep were done today and I were calling the shots, each face would be like an HDTV monitor, and the bottom of the display unit would be just off the surface of the table.
 
Last edited:
Well, some of the internet job application kiosks in big box stores look a bit clunky--though very solid--with older computer screens recessed in a stand. I like that NORAD type Look. In the future, you want to keep things spartan so as to avoid folks wasting time playing games--so you ask the computer a question and are required to know the position of unmarked knobs and switches.
 
This is an interesting idea for a topic. I like to think that what we see in TOS is not an absolutely accurate depiction of the technology but just the closest approximation that Desilu/Paramount was capable of in the 1960s with the available budget and technology. The seemingly "more advanced" tech of ENT or the Kelvin isn't really more advanced in-universe, it's just being represented by more advanced, higher-budget production methods that are able to come closer to the hypothetical "reality" of the tech, in the same way that modern computer animation can provide more detailed and realistic shots of spaceships, planetscapes, and alien creatures than the miniatures, matte paintings, and costumes/puppets of the '60s.

So I wouldn't mind seeing some design proposals for what those big boxy computers with blinky lights and toggle switches might've "actually" looked like -- something that modernizes the components and gives them more functionality while preserving the overall aesthetic, the underlying "reality" that the '60s prop builders could only suggest with the available resources.
 
It's always fascinating looking at retro-future designs and seeing what they got right and what they got wrong. Trek really nailed it with things like communicators and tricorders, but much of their computing stuff was way off. Their systems were advanced enough to have speech recognition systems, even if actual speech generation appeared a bit ropey. :)

The big thing we see in sci-fi series is the interface and how people interact with their computers. Minaturisation of parts means that we can make incredibly powerful systems and tools of minute size, but we have to limit how small we make them because of the need for humans to punch buttons or look at screens. In reality the computer of 2050 may just be a comm-badge, working much like we saw in TNG. Ask a question, have it link to your friends to talk to them, get it to play music for you, etc. It would use any handy nearby display if you needed to see something. It may well be invisible, a mesh woven into clothing with its own power in there too. Not a lot there for a prop maker to make, but likely the real future. As unreliable as SIRI is on the iPhone, I think its a momentous step and shows what's really coming when they perfect it.
 
Yeah, I was thinking along those same lines, but the only thing that has me scratching my head is the size. Should a computer be "big as a breadbox", or should it be more like those table-top intercom/communicators we see in Kirk's cabin and the Briefing Room? I'm not saying exactly the same size (maybe a little bigger), but more than type of arrangement...
 
My impression is that the refrigerator size components as seen in Court Martial were probably server/routers components directly feeding off of the mainframe, if not part of the mainframe itself. The later would be closer to how 60s computing worked. If you wanted to reprogram a computer, you had to access the actual mainframe. The idea of stand alone tower/terminals as we know them today really didn't come into the picture until many years later.

The breadbox machines could go either way. They could be stand-alone computers OR network terminals. The unit in the briefing room (the one Spock often used to control the big screen) seemed to be a tie-in terminal to the "mainframe". The loaf-shaped grey one (as seen in Kirk's quarters in several eps and the one beamed down from the Enterprise in "Omega Glory" and "Miri" was used as both. (Kirk's acted as a terminal, while McCoy's OG unit was a stand alone.)
 
I tend to shy away from the idea of "mainframes". My view is that if a handheld talkie communicator can offer voice-recongition capability to route calls, then it's reasonable to assume that a starship's (or starbases's) computing systems are decentralized, made up of a network of microcomputers and some pooled supercomputers as well. (The refrigerators)

While I hear and understand The Axeman's P.O.V., I tend to think that if the breadboxes needed to be changed in any way it would be in terms of size. If you could imagine the classic breadbox shape and configurations, but only a fraction of the size, they might be more plausible. Since those machines seem to move around plenty, I would say a reduced-size version could easily be plucked off a table and carried to a new location with one hand.

If there's one time when TOS really did miss the mark, it would be in "The Omega Glory" when Spock seems to feel it's necessary to rig a computer to contact the ship. He should've been able to walk over, ask for a chat session with Uhura, or order a distress call immediately; no monkey wrench required.
 
I tend to shy away from the idea of "mainframes". My view is that if a handheld talkie communicator can offer voice-recongition capability to route calls, then it's reasonable to assume that a starship's (or starbases's) computing systems are decentralized, made up of a network of microcomputers and some pooled supercomputers as well. (The refrigerators)

Only problem with that is that it is 100% canon that starships DO have massive mainframe computers at the heart of their data networks (known also as computer "cores"). They have been explicitly mentioned or shown in at least 5 different Trek series (ENT, TOS, TAS, TNG, and DS9).

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Computer_core

If there's one time when TOS really did miss the mark, it would be in "The Omega Glory" when Spock seems to feel it's necessary to rig a computer to contact the ship. He should've been able to walk over, ask for a chat session with Uhura, or order a distress call immediately; no monkey wrench required.
Again, not within the framework of what they knew about computer technology at that time. The "loafs" were stupid powerful enough by 1960s standards, but the idea of networking/distributed computing was still the better part of 20 years down the road.
 
This is actually a topic I've been interested in for awhile; I've redesigned the communicator to include a touchscreen (and the lid is more of a transparent aluminum rather than perforated metal), but it's still recognizably a communicator and not something else entirely: TriComm

I've also redesigned the desktop viewer (the personal one, not the tri-viewer from the briefing room - yet ;)) it's a tad more radical, to reflect more current technological capabilities, while trying to maintain a recognizable resemblance to the original: FlatComm

I'm always eager to see a <i>good</i> updating of Treknology, one that makes sense and recognizes the original design ethic or intent - just redesigning something from scratch for the heck of it, just to make it 'different,' never makes much sense to me.
 
Those redesigns aren't bad, but they're maybe a little too reminiscent of present-day smartphone and monitor designs, so they may look as dated in the future as the originals do today.
 
Thanks! I think that's probably always going to be the case - everything is pretty much going to be dated to around the time of its creation, even things designed for science fiction. Clothes, tools, etc. usually reflect the current state-of-the art - rarely does a 'best guess' at future technology, at least in appearance, seem to match up with the eventual reality. It seems especially true with computers and communications equipment, I guess ;).
 
Nothing wrong with a guess at future tech -- it's just that those look too much like present tech, right down to things like the design of the buttons and camera lenses on the sides of the communicator mimicking a current cell phone. It's just too contemporary. (Then again, the original tricorder was modelled on what was then the advanced, state-of-the-art technology of the portable cassette recorder...)
 
I do not have a problem with most TOS handheld equipment per se. I always took the tinkering done in field situations in various TOS eps as evidence that these were "stone knives and bear skins" examples of basic field equipment items that would be (relatively) easy to repair, assemble or otherwise maintain (or customize) while away from the ship. From my bass-ackwards P.O.V., this isn't about giving TOS a Mulligan; it's about recognizing the context of shore parties/expeditions and the series' implied P.O.U. (philosophy-of-use).


Ptrope's excellent work is exactly what I want to encourage here, even if "A Taste of Armageddon" seems to rule out videoconferencing via handheld. ("Those are my orders, Mister Scott".)

Ian Keldon makes a great point, but there's also the "Contagion" loophole to take into consideration here: After Data revives himself, LaForge suggests wiping all recent memories and reloading needed software "from the protected archives in the Main Core", vaguely suggesting that this "core" is an archival or backup system to keep the ship safe from cyber-blackouts.
 
This is actually a topic I've been interested in for awhile; I've redesigned the communicator to include a touchscreen (and the lid is more of a transparent aluminum rather than perforated metal), but it's still recognizably a communicator and not something else entirely: TriComm

I've also redesigned the desktop viewer (the personal one, not the tri-viewer from the briefing room - yet ;)) it's a tad more radical, to reflect more current technological capabilities, while trying to maintain a recognizable resemblance to the original: FlatComm

I'm always eager to see a <i>good</i> updating of Treknology, one that makes sense and recognizes the original design ethic or intent - just redesigning something from scratch for the heck of it, just to make it 'different,' never makes much sense to me.

Very nice work, Ptrope...checked your entire DevArt gallery, and I especially liked the "Steam Trek" stuff.

About the communicator though, I have real problems with a military issuing "touch screen" ANYthing for field use...too easy to break and almost impossible to fix.

I have the same problem with "black panel" control interfaces...what happens if the computer generating and controlling the patters fries? What happens if the panel breaks. Individualized physical controls make more sense as they can be repaired/replaced one at a time, and a fault on one end of the board doesn't take the whole control rig off line.
 
About the communicator though, I have real problems with a military issuing "touch screen" ANYthing for field use...too easy to break and almost impossible to fix.

I have the same problem with "black panel" control interfaces...what happens if the computer generating and controlling the patters fries? What happens if the panel breaks. Individualized physical controls make more sense as they can be repaired/replaced one at a time, and a fault on one end of the board doesn't take the whole control rig off line.

Your measuring devices from 300 years in the future based on current day durabilities.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top