Seriously, where are the Klingons??
- Thread starter Roald
- Start date
Why are you using remakes of fiddler on the roof and cabaret as examples?? They are remakes.
Never said the show needed to look exaclty like TOS.
Discovery is more advanced than TOS and TNG and I'm not talking effects. Yet they are thrown 1000 years in the future and their ship is somehow as advanced or more advanced than anything Starfleet has at that point and Future Starfleet doesnt look much different than Picard Starfleet including starship design.
Funny that the bald/oblong Klingons are only shown on Discovery. Despite what you say it doesnt fit. They could have shown more consistency. Again the producers gave a lame excuse saying Klingons shave their heads during war...SINCE WHEN????..
Enterprise had plenty of buttons. They had tv screens all around their bridge. Looks much more cramped with archaic tv screens than the less cluttered TOS bridge. They also did a nice subtle update of the TOS bridge for in A Mirror Darkly. Including touch screen usage.
The bridge of the Enterprise in Discovery is one of the few things they kinda got correct update wise except for the incorrect scale.
This is all imo of course. No one has to agree. But people continue will continue to try to reconcile it including the producers with stupid throwaway lines (like Pike not liking holo communication) or stupid off screen explanations like shaved heads during war...lmao
The prodcuers didnt care ok??
The prodcuers of Enterprise actually TRIED.....Discovery not so much...
It wasn't the producers, it was the makeup designer.
They cared, they just didn't care in the same way you did.
As someone said... "This isn't just silly science fiction. Star Trek is a period piece, it's an invented period, but you need to observe the traditions, and the continuity, and the styles." - Mike Okuda
a painting of tng will look different from a cartoon version of tng and both look different from a tv version of tng. but within the same medium, why wouldn't you want tng to keep looking like tng?
or was one not available and they had to recast...? that's a production reason. what's the reason for radically changing established looks?
as we both said, this is about things specifically being a direct sequel or prequel, for which the era is obviously a factor XD
What? Most of the designs are complete departures from what we saw in the 23rd and 24th Centuries.
With due respect to Mr. Okuda, Star Trek is not a period piece. It needs no respecting or reason for change.
They're revivals. "Remake" is a term reserved for film. And I'm using revivals of Fiddler on the Roof and Cabaret because the same logic applies: Artists have no obligation to replicate the creative choices made in older productions.
And that's the correct choice. A 2020s TV program should not be trapped by the aesthetic and creative choices made 30 to 60 years in the past.
This is not accurate. The spore drive is more advanced than anything they have because it was lost technology. Other technologies, such as programmable matter, transporters, and warp drive, are more advanced in the 32nd Century. And you are overlooking the fact that the future Federation has good reason for some tech to be less advanced, as a result of the Burn.
I mean, the Roman Empire was in some ways more technologically advanced than 12th Century England. The idea that some technologies would regress is plausible.
What show are you watching? The Inquiry class and La Sirena look nothing like the 32nd Century ships.
That was, indeed, a creative choice Fuller made for DIS that set it apart from other productions. There is also nothing wrong with that choice.
It does not need to fit, and they have no obligation to have visual consistency with other production teams' television programs. Such consistency is a legitimate creative choice, but so is doing something different with no regard for visual consistency.
Since January 2019, obviously. This is not a reasonable complaint. Klingons are a fictional culture, and they have whatever cultural practices the creators of ST give them. Here's a prime example: In June 1991, Ronald D. Moore's "Redemption, Part I" established that women could not serve on the Klingon High Council; in December 1991, a Klingon woman became Chancellor in director Nicholas Meyers's Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. Are you going to complain about that, too?
"Cluttered" has nothing to do with advancement, and claiming that ENT did not look more advanced than TOS is silly. ENT was designed to look retro enough that you could suspend disbelief, but we never saw Spock using a touchscreen control on TOS and we didn't see digital displays in TOS.
Which was fun, but it wasn't TOS. Literally, it was an episode of ENT that was retconning what a TOS-style bridge looked like for a 2000s audience.
Which is the correct creative decision. A TV show in the 2020s should not be trying to replicate the aesthetics of a 60-year-old show.
That is one artistically legitimate goal to set for yourself. But it is not the only artistically legitimate way of doing ST.
(Okuda is also over-stating the extent to which TOS, the TOS films, TNG, the TNG films, DS9, VOY, and ENT were consistent between one-another.)
TNG should look like TNG! But DIS is not TOS, and SNW isn't DIS. There is nothing wrong with DIS contradicting the visual continuity of TOS, nor with SNW contradicting the visual continuity of DIS! They are separate TV shows.
They wanted to do something different. And that's a completely legitimate reason.
Perhaps something happened within the Klingon Empire that if Discovery were to arrive in the future, lock the entire empire down until further notice.
Well makeup is part of production.
ENT is just retro enough to suspend disbelief and pretend it's less advanced than TOS, though it obviously isn't. Which is a perfectly valid creative choice.
DIS is making no pretense at visual continuity. Which is a perfectly valid creative choice.
There is no problem except your unwillingness to extend your suspension of disbelief and let go of the desire for visual continuity. Which is really not DIS's problem.
I find it interesting that from what we’ve seen of Hemmer, the Aenar crew member from SNW, his makeup design resembles the Andorians from Discovery much more closely than either the TOS Andorians, or the Enterprise Aenar and Andorians.
Because of their apparent decision to go with modern makeup aesthetics for the Aenar, and because of Pike’s established relationship with L’Rell, that SNW could be an opportunity to show Klingons that would skew more towards an old school look alongside L’Rell and other Klingons from Discovery.
That's because alien makeups in Trek are not determined by the period, they're determined by who's designing the makeup. It's like comic book art. John Byrne's Superman looks different from Curt Swan's Superman or John Romita Jr.'s Superman. Bruce Timm's Batman looks different from Dick Giordano's Batman. Individual artists bring their own styles and interpretations rather than merely copying their predecessors. Yes, sometimes they emulate their precedessors, but sometimes they go very much in their own distinct directions.
Prosthetic makeup is an art form in the same way. Different makeup designers have always brought their own interpretations to Trek aliens, which is why you can break down the various Klingon looks by creator. Presumably SNW has the same makeup designer as DSC, thus it uses the same Andorian design. Thus, it stands to reason that SNW's Klingons would be DSC-style as well.
I have to agree with Dar here. Enterprise doesn’t need suspension of disbelief to look less advanced than TOS. It clearly does. The consoles and computers almost look NASA’ish. The ship is clearly less refined on the outside.
It’s weapons and technology are demonstrably inferior than TOS.
What we really need to suspend disbelief about these days is the way TOS technology looks. Obviously the makers of TOS did not intend its technology to look like it was made in the 1960s. They just approximated a futuristic look to the degree that they could with 1960s resources. Given the opportunity, they would've been the first to throw out those designs and replace them with something more futuristic-looking -- which is exactly what they did in TMP. I have no doubt that Gene Roddenberry, Matt Jefferies, and the rest of the TOS staff would've loved to have the opportunity to show us a bridge with touch screens, holographic displays, and the like, if they'd had the means to do that instead of having to settle for blinking lights and toggle switches.
Please show me where in ENT they used analogue displays, and please show me where in TOS they used touchscreen controls.
And NASA computers look more advanced than the TOS computers.
Only if you adhere to a design assumption that equates visible aztecing and rust-colored livery with "less refined." These are just visual shorthands with no real link to how advanced the ship is or is not.
That is an in-universe thing. We're talking about design aesthetics, not in-universe continuity. In-universe, the NX-01 is less advanced than the 1701 at every level, and in-universe Saavik looks like the same person on the Genesis Planet as she did aboard the Enterprise fighting Khan. But in real life, the set of the NX-01 is noticeably more advanced than the set of the TOS version of the 1701, and Kirstie Alley and Robin Curtis are obviously two different people.
Similar threads
