Spoilers Star Trek: Discovery 3x07 - "Unification III"

That may or may not be the reason Bryan Fuller wanted to set DSC in that time-frame but it's exactly why that setting was approved by those who Bryan Fuller reported to. And seeing fan-films convinced me "No! Please don't make it look like TOS!" It's just one of those things I had to see, to know that's not what I think they should do.

It absolutely was their prerogative. And I was in no rush to see the TNG Era again, so I was okay with it. Then came PIC a few years later, and then I realized I did want to see the TNG Era again after all. Shows what I knew...

DSC was created in a different time -- even though it was only five years ago -- and I think we were all in a different mental place. The studio was, I certainly was, and so were a lot of other people. So you have to look at it in the context of the time and, at the time, people still thought the 24th Century was toxic. Yes, Nemesis left that bad of a sting, that it took almost two decades to get over.

But DSC is in the 32nd Century to stay and it doesn't matter anymore because it's water under the bridge. SNW looks more faithful to the TOS Era and the more I see of SNW, the less and less interested in it I become. But different strokes for different folks. I don't care much for Lower Decks either. But I'm happy with DSC and PIC, and other people can be happy SNW and/or LD.

I really have no interest in seeing the 23rd Century again. Like I've said before: When DSC left the 23rd Century, so did I in a sense.

 

Fan films is what convinced me that it COULD still be viable, and cemented in that I have infinitely more love for the old style than any of the updates. I am still of the mind, that they could have used the original model and just added textures and details for the ship. I didn't mind some of the stuff ENT did to keep in-line with an older style at times. Rebuilding the TOS floor plan with some newer looking materials and computer screens, but keeping the dimensions intact, could have easily been done, and worked just as well, IMO. The aesthetics themselves still work.

 

It's only viable to fans.

 

Respectfully disagree. I'm talking about just keeping the general floorplan and color schemes and general ship aesthetics. All sorts of modern updates could be worked in. I've seen more then enough fanmade CGI and photoshops to ever believe* that the original ship design would look bad with modern effects.

*edit*

 

We're both biased.

 

I can't not agree with that. Well said.

 

Whut?

 

He agrees completely...

 

Too many nots

 

I totally agree and would have loved to see that. It would have been bold and far more interesting than the cliched scifi look we got instead. But I have a problem with the cinematography of the whole show, the grading in particular. Try and find another colour apart from amber or teal, you'll be looking a while.

 

Agreed, grading and camera movements are often really detrimental.

The second improved a bit in the third season, until we got the worst of worsts in the season finale, with upside down spinning people for no reason.

 

A lot of people were whining about how the tech in ENT was too advanced when it was on the air.

I'm sorry, but a show featuring clearly-wooden sets filled with computers that look like they're straight of the 1960s was never gonna fly in the 2010s or 2020s. Hell, the only reason TNG, DS9, and VOY still work is that Michael Okuda was a goddamn genius who foresaw that one days computer displays were going to be touchscreens and replicated the concept on the cheap for a 1980s syndication budget.

 

Because it was.

 

if anything it looked already dated to me.

 

I mean it wasn't just aesthetics. TNG's "Realm of Fear" had implied that the transporter was invented somewhere around the 2210s, but ENT had Earth inventing it in the 2150s before they'd even become a major interstellar power. TNG's "A Matter of Time" had established that phasers hadn't been invented in the 22nd Century, but ENT had everyone using "phase pistols" and "phase cannons" that are, from a dramatic POV, identical to phasers. The "photonic torpedoes" are virtual identical to photon torpedoes, etc. Basically the issue was that the actual tech was too advanced in general, not just how things looked.

 

I loved Enterprise. Number three on my list. The tech was fine. Transporters were new. Phase pistols were the precursor to phasers. (Seriously a ray gun is a ray gun) No shields or tractor beams.

 

And the transporter predates even 2151. Dr. Emory Erickson invented the transporter years before ENT's first season and when Archer was much younger. This does clash with the old Earth or Federation colony from circa 2168 in "The Masterpiece Society(TNG)" being astonished by the existence of transporter technology but that could just be because they haven't had records of it that go back to the mid-to-late 22nd century or lost existing records at some point, the descendants of the original colonists not knowing what a transporter was.

 

totally with you here. What I meant is that the technology looked dated from a real-world point of view, unnecessarily busy-looking, unergonomic and bulky. Something I love of TNG, and unfortunately something that was gradually lost over the years, is how simple operating the systems seemed, as if it was indeed the result of centuries of computer evolution and streamlining.

 

I'm fairly sure that the people actually making ENT never wanted to use the transporter in the first place, but were forced to do so by the network bean counters.

Pity.

 

Yeah, ENT definitely felt too boxy, but at the same time too advanced for the time period. It was a weird mishmash, and didn't try to distinguish itself by limiting the tech. Phase pistols were phasers, torpedoes were torpedoes, etc. It's why I'm less concerned with the aesthetics of various shows-ENT pretty much showed that the differences are not much.

As for TNG, well, the look of it was sleek but LCARS was never advanced looking to my eye. Bearing in mind that I saw LCARS in the 90s and found it aesthetically unpleasing and uninteresting.