Streamlined or Industrial....

[Warped9]

For the sake of discussion.

Prior to the 1970s SF tech and hardware on film and television was almost exclusively streamlined. It echoed the clean and uncluttered look of classic era rocketships as well as the view that the future would be simplified and uncluttered. It wasn't an irrational assumption given real world tech and hardware reflected what was assumed in SF in the visual mediums. Real world aircraft and cars and other constructs such as architecture, ships and even household appliances tended to be streamlined and clean in design.

I think that started to change with 2001: A Space Odyssey and the introduction of the Apollo lunar lander. 2001 showed us a mixture of streamlined design as well as seeming to take cues from the Apollo lander by adding more surface detail to the designs. It was a nice balance for the depiction of near future (within a few decades) hardware. And that trend continued into the '70s.

Star Trek might have been one of the last big gasps of streamlined design in SF. Perhaps partially influenced by budgetary concerns and limitations of resources Matt Jefferies was inclined to envision far future tech as being clean and uncluttered suggesting that important hardware could be reached from the inside of the vehicle rather than risk having to go outside the ship. He took the clean look of the classic rocketship and applied it to exotic shapes for the far future. But this look could also be seen in shows like Lost In Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea and Land Of The Giants.

Things changed in 1977. Star Wars popularized the "industrial" look by taking exotic shapes and applying lots of surface detail. Whereas previously the idea of advanced tech was conveyed through shape and clean design from 1977 onward the idea was conveyed through complexity of detail. And this is the look that has reined since and remains so today. Even Star Trek was influenced by this new aesthetic as greater detailing was added to the exotic Trek shapes beginning with ST-TMP and continued to the present.

The Alien franchise (beginning in 1979) also contributed greatly to the popularity of the industrial look. Star Wars tech tended to look used or second-hand, but Alien's tech looked dirty, worn, neglected and uninviting. Star Trek and Star Wars' tech could give you the urge to climb aboard and take it for a ride, but Alien's tech looked like a dirty factory in space.

There are exceptions to the the rule and even the Alien franchise parted with its factory look (to a point) with the film Prometheus and the introduction of the starship Prometheus which was a lot cleaner and more futuristic looking than previous Alien designs.


Is one aesthetic more valid than the other? I see value in both and I would say they both have a measure of validity--and the dictates of the story or fictional universe should guide the overall look of the tech.

For myself--influenced by growing up in the '60s and '70s--I generally prefer the streamlined look for far future tech and hardware, but I allow that a lot depends on the context. What is balanced could vary from individual to individual, but I appreciate a certain measure of detail to an overall clean design.


Anyone else?

 

[beamMe]

The mix worked in TMP.
So, whatever looks good.

 

[Duncan MacLeod]

I prefer the streamlined look myself. In fact my favorite Star Wars ships are the two Royal Naboo starships for just that reason.

 

[C.E. Evans]

I've always favored a variety of styles.

I do remember though an old interview with Matt Jefferies in which it was said that he had to fight to keep people from adding stuff to the hull of the TOS Enterprise. Not only did he believe that it was more practical for maintenance/repair crews to access things (like phaser banks) from inside the ship, but that keeping them concealed within the hull also gave them some protection from various space hazards during routine flight.

 

[martok2112]

I'm a bit more toward the industrial/used look (Star Wars, Alien). I always thought the Enterprise could use some of that look as well. After all, she has been out in space for a long time. The inside of the ship could obviously look a bit more pristine....but show some signs of heavy use over the years as well.

 

[BillJ]

Depends on story and setting.

 

[Admiral2]

I'm writing in "Neither." They're both extreme clichés. Star Trek pretty much invented "streamlined", and a bunch of other production designers went with "industrial" as a means of their directors' and producers' protest against Trek's neatness. You hear it whenever they talk about their creations, like Joss Whedon's assertion that the Starship Enterprise would just "blow right by" Serenity and her crew.

As so often happens, the best answer is something in the middle: streamlined yes, but with enough industry mixed in so that the streamlining doesn't make it look like it was built by Little Grays. The best trek example of this would be the NX-01.

 

[Warped9]

Star Trek pretty much invented "streamlined", and a bunch of other production designers went with "industrial" as a means of their directors' and producers' protest against Trek's neatness. You hear it whenever they talk about their creations, like Joss Whedon's assertion that the Starship Enterprise would just "blow right by" Serenity and her crew.

No, the streamlined aesthetic was well established by the time Star Trek came along. Star Trek might be the most remembered example due to its popularity, but it didn't invent the look.

Roddenberry informed Matt Jefferies he didn't want to see flaming exhausts and fins, but MJ did carry over the streamlined aesthetic over into the design of the Enterprise, the interior sets and the various alien ships such as the Klingon battle cruiser. Jefferies rationalized the look, but it was already common in film and television.

If you look at films of the '50s and early '60s and even go back as far as the '20s you'll see SF hardware with the streamlined look. Star Trek's distinction was applying some of it to more exotic shapes than saucers and rocketships. And even that was beginning to be seen on the covers of SF novels and magazines.

One of the nicest examples (in my opinion) of the streamlined look and trying to make a rocketship look more exotic is the spaceship Cosmostrator from a 1959 east German/Polish film called Der schweigende Stern (The Silent Star). It was later seen in English as Last Spaceship On Venus.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I think that started to change with 2001: A Space Odyssey and the introduction of the Apollo lunar lander. 2001 showed us a mixture of streamlined design as well as seeming to take cues from the Apollo lander by adding more surface detail to the designs. It was a nice balance for the depiction of near future (within a few decades) hardware. And that trend continued into the '70s.

Yes--most notably with some of the ships from the Anderson's' U.F.O. and Space:1999--the latter being a huge bridge between the 2001 design and Star Wars.

Star Trek might have been one of the last big gasps of streamlined design in SF. Perhaps partially influenced by budgetary concerns and limitations of resources Matt Jefferies was inclined to envision far future tech as being clean and uncluttered suggesting that important hardware could be reached from the inside of the vehicle rather than risk having to go outside the ship. He took the clean look of the classic rocketship and applied it to exotic shapes for the far future. But this look could also be seen in shows like Lost In Space, Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea and Land Of The Giants.

Irwin Allen definitely was from the school of smooth/exotic as representation of the future, with no conventional boosters, fins, etc. He took it into a unique direction by basing the Flying Sub & Spindrift on animal shapes, which turned out to be completely unique in science fiction (film) ship design up to that time (unless you want to include the shark-like design of the Nautilus from the 1954 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea), and rarely seen since (the Starbug from Red Dwarf being one example).

Is one aesthetic more valid than the other? I see value in both and I would say they both have a measure of validity--and the dictates of the story or fictional universe should guide the overall look of the tech.

That's a sound way of considering vehicle design: whatever suits the need of the story. There is no "must have" kind of design for ships, but as we witnessed, in the wake of the success of Star Wars, almost every production imposed that obsessive, greeble or panel overload on ships, and it did not help that the audience would not accept anything else. That kind of single design worship strips creators of their own identity, as if all must be some visual "cousin" or "grandchild" to one film's choices.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Objectively, both are valid and both have their place. Personally, I don't like all the meganooks and hypercrannies of the Stars Wars look. I always figured they must be a bitch to clean. Maybe they don't clean them. Maybe that's why everything is so gray and dull.

The streamlined motif is what looks futuristic to me, and futurism is, oddly enough, what got me into SF back in the 60s when I was a mere waif. I really hate that everything in SF now looks like the basement of an abandoned factory. Like these two new Space Operas on Sciffy. One of them actually shot an episode in an abandoned industrial park, with absolutely no effort to make it look like it wasn't an abandoned industrial park. It's ridiculous.

 

[Amaris]

It depends upon the context. When it comes to Star Trek, I like streamlined, with a smattering of industrial. With Star Wars, I like things messy, and cluttered. "Lived in" may be the better term there. There are exceptions, of course. In a place like a ship's bridge, or a powerful, wealthy nation, I expect neatness and orderliness. In a slum, or in an engineering room, I expect clutter and noise.

 

[FPAlpha]

I echo the opinion of depends on setting and context.

For example BSG had this.. the old lady was cluttered and had some rough spots that are more similar to industrial design but the newer Pegasus was far more streamlined.

It is good way for a show to easily distinguish ships or devices as industrial design is often associated with old, outdated (but still functional) whereas sleek, rounded curves and blended areas are the hallmark of modern design. Put those two next together and have people guess which is the older design and i'm sire most people will point to industrial designs.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

It depends upon the context. When it comes to Star Trek, I like streamlined, with a smattering of industrial. With Star Wars, I like things messy, and cluttered. "Lived in" may be the better term there. There are exceptions, of course. In a place like a ship's bridge, or a powerful, wealthy nation, I expect neatness and orderliness.

Which makes the dizzying, greeble-ized exteriors of the wealthy Republic ships and their successors (Star Destroyers) senseless, since they have the financial resources & technology to produce any kind of vehicle. In-universe, what would prevent them from having smooth surfaces?

 

[Tom Hendricks]

I'm more an industrial guy, my favorite ships are the Earth Force ships from Babylon 5. They are unmistakably human, in the best way possible. They look powerful and utilitarian, no frills and moderate comfort.

 

[Admiral2]

Star Trek pretty much invented "streamlined", and a bunch of other production designers went with "industrial" as a means of their directors' and producers' protest against Trek's neatness. You hear it whenever they talk about their creations, like Joss Whedon's assertion that the Starship Enterprise would just "blow right by" Serenity and her crew.

No, the streamlined aesthetic was well established by the time Star Trek came along. Star Trek might be the most remembered example due to its popularity, but it didn't invent the look.

Roddenberry informed Matt Jefferies he didn't want to see flaming exhausts and fins, but MJ did carry over the streamlined aesthetic over into the design of the Enterprise, the interior sets and the various alien ships such as the Klingon battle cruiser. Jefferies rationalized the look, but it was already common in film and television.

If you look at films of the '50s and early '60s and even go back as far as the '20s you'll see SF hardware with the streamlined look. Star Trek's distinction was applying some of it to more exotic shapes than saucers and rocketships. And even that was beginning to be seen on the covers of SF novels and magazines.

One of the nicest examples (in my opinion) of the streamlined look and trying to make a rocketship look more exotic is the spaceship Cosmostrator from a 1959 east German/Polish film called Der schweigende Stern (The Silent Star). It was later seen in English as Last Spaceship On Venus.

Fine. I'm sticking with what I said. It's an extreme.