The TOS aesthetic…

[Qonundrum]

Regardless of how TOS’ look came about it became an integral part of its identity and its depiction of a future setting. The clean design gave it a sense of magic in that it’s not readily apparent how the technology is supposed works. It said things look this way because the technology allows us to make it look this way as opposed the technology forcing us to make it look a certain way.

I can easily see TOS’ look updated with a bit more detail yet without sacrificing the sense of magic. But after TMP that idea went completely out the window. Successive interior and exterior designs got evermore complex and evermore meh.

I’ll go on record to say the sets and designs of SNW, an extension of DSC, don’t impress me at all. And they certainly don’t convince me “this is how it really looked like all along.” It’s just the latest exercise in pissing on the original creativity. And it sure as hell doesn’t look far future.

And practicality. If "No seatbelts!!" was an argument back in the day, that pales compared to whacking holographic controls in the air in terms of "suspension of disbelief pissfest". Especially during battle when it's easier to flail them appendages all over the place. And as well-constructed as the f/x are, the few times the f/x don't move in sync with the actor pretending to shoo away imaginary flies, does take a lot out of it.

Still, practicality aside, the idea of holographic controls has been toyed with in smartphones. Like a Virtual Laser wireless keyboard. Granted, it does as much for your fingers by tapping on a solid wood plank as it does tapping on glass all day, with no tactile or ergonomic response since the cushioning effect won't wear out the finger thingies so quickly, but it's all good. Well, mostly, one still needs a reflective surface and a zillion replacement batteries, the holographic sci-fi equivalent probably needs a smoky room or else you wouldn't see any controls...

 

[fireproof78]

I have no issue with TOS' practical interfaces but if you give me holographic controls that is my preference for a more futuristic look. Call it dumb, call it stupid, call it whatever you want. I love TOS, and enjoy seeing a lot of different designs come from it. But, holographic controls are "the future" to me.

 

[dupersuper]

TMP first did the "how it looks all along" bit.

Ummm...no? Roddenberry may have liked to think that, but the movie makes no such claim. Years have passed, and the ship has undergone a refit.

 

[fireproof78]

Ummm...no? Roddenberry may have liked to think that, but the movie makes no such claim. Years have passed, and the ship has undergone a refit.

"Years?" 18 months is all.

And I was referring to the Klingons.

 

[Maurice]

"Years?" 18 months is all.

And I was referring to the Klingons.

More than that. Kirk had been at Starfleet for 2 1/2 years.

I for one got that you meant the Klingons.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

but on the whole, Lost in Space feels VERY dated.

One of the problems with most Allen productions was the mix of interesting exteriors for miniatures, only to be compromised by the overuse of rental house machines seen since the 1940s, with few "dolled up" with more blinking lights. Allen--apparently--did not care, as he believed it was "futuristic" in the sense that the average person did not live or work around such machinery, which may have been true, but a 1940s generator was seen as a 1940s generator.

But after TMP that idea went completely out the window. Successive interior and exterior designs got evermore complex and evermore meh.

What's interesting is that with a lighting change, the TMP bridge suddenly had some feeling of life and character to it--like TOS' bridge, instead of the sterile look from the..well, sterile TMP.

I’ll go on record to say the sets and designs of SNW, an extension of DSC, don’t impress me at all. And they certainly don’t convince me “this is how it really looked like all along.” It’s just the latest exercise in pissing on the original creativity. And it sure as hell doesn’t look far future.

Agreed.

 

[fireproof78]

More than that. Kirk had been at Starfleet for 2 1/2 years.

I for one got that you meant the Klingons.

Thank you.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

I have no issue with TOS' practical interfaces but if you give me holographic controls that is my preference for a more futuristic look. Call it dumb, call it stupid, call it whatever you want. I love TOS, and enjoy seeing a lot of different designs come from it. But, holographic controls are "the future" to me.

The issue I have with holographic interfaces is the assumption that their After Effects-level animation of holograms would even be around--or appear as they do by the 22 - 23rd centuries.

Further, when a film set in the present day such as The Avengers already used holo-interfaces, it seems sort of absurd that the people behind DSC, etc. would still think its fine to use essentially the same sort of appearance and functionality in a far future setting.

 

[fireproof78]

The issue I have with holographic interfaces is the assumption that their After Effects-level animation of holograms would even be around--or appear as they do by the 22 - 23rd centuries.

Further, when a film set in the present day such as The Avengers already used holo-interfaces, it seems sort of absurd that the people behind DSC, etc. would still think its fine to use essentially the same sort of appearance and functionality in a far future setting.

Anachronisms abound. Just stating my preference and I will always gravitate towards holographic displays and controls as "the future" in visual language.

TOS is kind of an interesting place. I like the design language but not all of it screams "the future" to me. Things like phasers or tricorders are great, but communicators or some of the control interfaces lack that certain something. Trek started losing it's allure about ten years ago when I started researching space travel in earnest. It's good, and fun and iconic and influential and as far as TV design language go it is visually grabbing. But it doesn't scratch that itch for me any more in terms of technology. Characters, different story.

 

[drt]

The TMP transporter looked scary as opposed to the TOS transporter. TNG managed to make it not look scary anymore.

TMP seemed to reimagine the transporter as a sketchy, dangerous technology compared to how it had been treated in the original series. They also seemed to imply that it only worked with a machine on either end, as there was a lot more docking of various shuttles, fetching errant science officers in spacesuits and walking a mile over hexagonal styrofoam blocks when it would have been quicker and easier to simply beam folks.

 

[Ronald Held]

For non dated future controls, you want telepathic interfaces?

 

[drt]

For non dated future controls, you want telepathic interfaces?

Telepathy is sort of a dated scifi concept as well, but I suppose you meant wireless cybernetic man-machine interfaces.

A real future starship would be 100% controlled by the computer, with the crew likely just giving verbal commands to change things. There's really no reason for a helmsman to waste time randomly button mashing or holographically waving to execute the captain's order of "evasive maneuver Riker-delta" when the computer can do it immediately without a middleman - or just be preprogrammed to do such without human input if stuff goes south.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

"Years?" 18 months is all.

And I was referring to the Klingons.

Going from TOS to TMP, Kirk changed as much as the Klingons did. He's like a different guy, and not for the better.

 

[fireproof78]

Going from TOS to TMP, Kirk changed as much as the Klingons did. He's like a different guy, and not for the better.

Indeed. Quite oft putting going from TOS to TMP.

 

[TREK_GOD_1]

Going from TOS to TMP, Kirk changed as much as the Klingons did. He's like a different guy, and not for the better.

Indeed. Quite oft putting going from TOS to TMP.

Like so many issues with that dreary film, Kirk's TMP characterization was a forced, out-of-character move to introduce a pissy conflict with Decker / give Kirk a motive to wanting to return to the captain's chair. Contrast that motive with Kirk's mid-life issues / McCoy's advice in TWOK: clear, relatable reasons why Kirk--at that pivotal age--would miss his desire to be captain again (coupled with his saying he felt young at the end of the film),with compelling reasons why he had to lead again.

If the TOS side of Star Trek has its own form of an "imaginary story," it must be TMP, as its that much of a disconnected idea from the heart of what made Star Trek.

 

[ZapBrannigan]

Like so many issues with that dreary film, Kirk's TMP characterization was a forced, out-of-character move to introduce a pissy conflict with Decker / give Kirk a motive to wanting to return to the captain's chair. Contrast that motive with Kirk's mid-life issues / McCoy's advice in TWOK: clear, relatable reasons why Kirk--at that pivotal age--would miss his desire to be captain again (coupled with his saying he felt young at the end of the film),with compelling reasons why he had to lead again.

If the TOS side of Star Trek has its own form of an "imaginary story," it must be TMP, as its that much of a disconnected idea from the heart of what made Star Trek.

I recall Leonard Nimoy saying of Kirk and Spock in TMP, something like "We weren't allowed to play the characters that the fans wanted to see." I'm sure I butchered that quote, but he knew the movie was way off in this regard.

Also, DeForest Kelley said he'd been looking forward to playing a big dialogue scene with Shatner, but Shatner kept putting off the rehearsal. And then the scene got cut from the script. From the context of what Kelley said, it was clear that Shatner was fighting backstage battles to keep Kirk from being too much of a jerk. So apparently things could have been even worse if he'd been passive.

 

[dupersuper]

Indeed. Quite oft putting going from TOS to TMP.

It never put me off...

 

[1001001]

Like so many issues with that dreary film, Kirk's TMP characterization was a forced, out-of-character move to introduce a pissy conflict with Decker / give Kirk a motive to wanting to return to the captain's chair.

One of the many, many problems I had with that film. I agree Kirk was completely out of character (actually almost everyone was).

I love movies 2-6, but I find TMP unwatchable.

 

[fireproof78]

It never put me off...

And? You and I treat Trek very differently.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Like so many issues with that dreary film, Kirk's TMP characterization was a forced, out-of-character move to introduce a pissy conflict with Decker / give Kirk a motive to wanting to return to the captain's chair.

One of the many, many problems I had with that film. I agree Kirk was completely out of character (actually almost everyone was).

Yeah, I agree. Kirk and Spock in particular are both FAR removed from their TOS characterizations and consequently not anywhere near as much fun to watch as they were on the show. Only McCoy feels like the same person we watched on the television series. I think they could've gotten away with doing either Midlife Crisis Kirk or Purged Emotions Spock in the movie, but not both.

Scotty, Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov don't really have any character bits in TMP, so I can't really say that any of them are out of character, outside of Scotty being so blasé about Kirk potentially destroying the Enterprise to defeat V'Ger ("When that much matter and anti-matter come together, oh yes, we will indeed!").