The truth about Discovery and the Prime universe.

But they did for the 1978-1991 and 2009-current movies. Albeit with narriative fig leaves applied to explain the change. No doubt they could come up with a third excuse for any new redeisgn -- maybe we only ever see the USS Constitution, NCC-1700, with its experimental refit hull configuration that was never adopted by the other ships in the line. Or whatever -- pick your reason.

We're not gonna see the TOS configuration on screen, though.

I can!

It's badly dated. It was dated in 1978 when Taylor et al redesigned it for TMP.

 

[SIZE=3][FONT=-apple-system-font][COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]I am forever amused when I read this argument. The 1960s look is what spawned this whole phenomenon. It is what continues to sell toys and models fifty years later. It was a high level of design achievement despite the fact it had to be portrayed on a very limited budget with relatively primitive technology. The designs developed just ten years later for Star Wars - Millennium Falcon, x-wing fighters and all the rest - continue to be used in Rogue One and The Force Awakens as well as the Star Wars animated TV shows, despite being covered with 1970s model kit parts and being festooned with such "dated" technology as dish antennae. It lives on because it has at its heart a sound, creative, evocative design sense to it, and this is true whether the work of McQuarrie or Jefferies.

Star Wars stuck hard and fast to its original designs and has been very successful. Star Trek visually reinvents itself ten times in twenty minutes, calling attention to the fact it is as fake as a three credit coin. And really, that is the ultimate point - if you say the original Enterprise design looks dated, I guess you are inferring that somehow the Kelvin or JJPrise or this Discovery thing will look "futuristic". Sorry to break it to you but we aren't ever going to see any of this stuff in our or any future. It isn't about looking futuristic. It is about selling stuff and the owners of the Star Trek trademark decided a long time ago that the best way to sell stuff was to completely re-invest it every time out. Verisimilitude and looking futuristic or even successfully portraying the look of a spaceship in space be damned.

Matt Jefferies' designs, if done with skill, lighted with skill, used with skill, would be just as impressive or likely even more so than anything we have seen, including the beautiful redesign from 1978. Which, by the way, was not the work of Richard Taylor. Taylor and Probert added finishing touches to a redesign by, you guessed it, Matt Jefferies, with Taylor making a big contribution in reworking Jefferies' Phase II nacelle design. But the redesign itself was Jefferies'.[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]

 

When, and I'm sure there will be at least one beauty shot for a special episode, the Enterprise appears in Discovery, she's going to be immediately identifiable to anyone watching "The Enterprise" but updated to look like a 2017 version unique to the show.

There will be merchandise. And we're all going to buy one.

 

Star Wars (and, similarly, Alien and Blade Runner) is the lucky beneficiary of the late 1970s/early 1980s military surplus sci-fi look aging remarkably well. The aesthetics of the '50s, '60s, and late '80s have dated far worse. Even the look of the mid to late '90s are showing their age-- all those boxes filled with LEDs!

I get that Trek fans want the old Trek aesthetic preserved the way Wars has --- it doesn't seem fair, does it? -- but life isn't fair and the older Trek stuff looks kinda dumb.

 

It isn't a question of fair. It's a question of taste for what is popular. That's fine. But it has nothing to do with looking futuristic. Real spacecraft like the shuttle have smooth surfaces, as do aircraft. Jefferies' Enterprise design was specifically designed to look good under light. Various colors and intensities. It isn't really playing the same game of layers and layers of details. It would be a technical challenge to make it look believable because there isn't a lot of visual junk to hide behind. In that way, it is a more sophisticated design, tough to get right. Believable? It has lots of naval and military cues but not the ones from Alien or Outland or Star Wars. But also not the same thing as the Jupiter 2. It is its own thing. And it has sustained broad popularity, where all the others have drifted into niches.

The people that continue to turn their back on the original TOS look instead of accepting the challenge of very subtly altering it here and there to make it look magical but believable and substantial but futuristic are missing an artistic and commercial opportunity. In my opinion.

 

I start to think that ST DSC should use a clean new universe (aka hard reboot) rather than putting itself inside the Prime Universe like what Fuller said before or the JJAbram universe like in the new movies. Too many protests, too many complain, too many politic to handle. And when the studio fulfill the fan wish, they still can find any hole that can be used to complain to the studio. Like say "It's violating the established canon", it's different from the Cage, the history is not right, etc.

So rather than that, why don't just make a new universe that doesn't has any relation with the prime universe? Make it clean. So there will only 2 possibility of reaction. Either the fan like it, or not. Nobody satisfy everyone. Just aim for what the marketing want to aim. Either the hard core fans, or seeking new fans from the current generation of TV audience.

 

I think a lot of people are confusing the production values with aesthetic. Sure, the former affects the latter, but they're not one and the same. I don't think anyone is suggesting maintaining 60's production values, but some people would like to see the overall aesthetic to be maintained. Sure, add some detail. have touchscreens instead of buttons; but keep the overall shapes and colours and style of things.

 

Precisely. Forbidden Planet and ST:TOS have my favorite aesthetics in all of science fiction. I wish more contemporary SF productions would reflect that sleek, smooth, forward-thinking design sense, while not necessarily slavishly imitating it in every way. JJ-Trek is pretty close, IMO. The Incredibles did it even better. I certainly don't want to see any more of the tired, gritty and dirty late 70s/early 80s sci-fi look.

Kor

 

Nacelle antennas or GTFO!

 

So the '50s, '60s, '80s and '90s have all dated badly. But somehow the '70s have escaped that fate and look remarkably modern today. Riiight…

So how about the 1890's or 1940's which inspired the look of Star Wars? Do they look modern or dated today?

Han Solo's futuristic blaster?

Millennium Falcon's futuristic cockpit?

Now excuse me while I go and dig up my retromodern '70s bell-bottom pants.

 

You mock, but it brings up something important. The styles that have dated more than the Star Wars look all used the state of the art for their eras to imagine a plausible future. (Again, think of all those LEDs in the '90s.) That causes those aethetics to age quickly.

Star Wars and it's ilk, on the other hand, weren't doing that. That grabbed whatever was on hand to make a cool sci fi environment without worry about plausibility, and in so doing took retro design and filtered it through the sensibilities of their day. They accidentally created something timeless because either wasn't bound to the aethetics of the decade in which it was made. A more extreme (and intentional) version of the same thing would be Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

Now, granted, do I think a modern Trek show could embrace retrofuturism and push a pseudo-60s aethetics filtered through modern styles? Yeah, I think it could, but it would have to push to the extreme. Again, think Sky Captain but with Star Trek -- tie dye on the crew, giant floating hologram heads, googie architecture ships, and so forth. The purists would be just as pissed at that version too I suspect.

 

Just to echo @Longinus and @Kor I actually find TOS's design aesthetic beautiful. TOS and Forbidden Planet are some of my favorite looks from that era, like Kor says.

When you play a 16 bit video game from the 90s like Sonic 3, or Zelda: ALLP, it is undeniably animated at a lower resolution than modern games, yet is stunningly gorgeous - people now increasingly realise that pixel art is a stylistic choice, not a limitation - TOS for me is the same, but as Longinus says that doesn't mean it can't be rendered in full HD with more texturing now. The TOS Connie in ENT looked amazing.

It doesn't look dumb at all to me.

 

We can also ask, "Why not just not do Star Trek at all and instead do something completely original?" You want clean? That would be as clean as it could get.

Me, I'm enjoying a lot of original material such as The Americans and Mr. Robot. I'm also enjoying adaptations such as Agents of SHIELD and Supergirl. Legion just made a strong start.

Along with all of that, there's room in my world for another iteration of Star Trek. I count at least nine major reimaginings of Star Trek so far; this one is expected to make ten (see below). Naturally, I'm willing to give the version that's currently being made by the entrusted parties a whirl. I've done that thing many times before.

Major reimaginings of Star Trek, by any other name:
1."Where No Man Has Gone Before"
2. "The Corbomite Maneuver"
3. "Beyond the Farthest Star"
4. The Motion Picture
5. The Wrath of Khan
6. "Encounter at Farpoint"
7. "Emissary"
8. "Broken Bow"
9. Star Trek (2009)
10. Discovery

What I'm counting as a major reimagining is one that involves a shift in continuity, format, tone, and/or narrative focus not seen before in the franchise. It's not as important to quibble about exactly how many times it's happened than to realize that it's already happened a lot.

Discovery will be just another ride on this mystery ship, fellow babies, the one we all supposedly enjoy.

 

Most of those assets are still owned by CBS, and have already been pulled for Trek projects recently...the Starships Collection for instance, and various DVD menus. Trek has a history of pulling its old assets or even using fan-made assets when it's cheaper and easier to do so (see Relics for a famous example with the bridge set.) Basically...it's been done before, it will be done again if needed.

 

Basically the same as when the Connie Enterprise showed up in Trials and Tribbleations, or the Defiant in ENT. I think this is likely. It's ten times easier (not to mention significantly cheaper time and money wise) than designing something new that is also constrained by a design (which it would be....even JJ didn't go far from the Connie refit.)

 

Apparently many of them are...it crops up in discussions around remastering DS9 all the time...many of the models are overbuilt, many have been maintained by the original VFX artist, and a slew have been converted by the Starships Collection. Don't forget also that any ships made for Nemesis (wrong time period I know, but you never know.) would have been built to motion picture standard, which would still be fine or more than fine for HDTV. Maybe not 4K, but definitely HDTV.

 

Star Wars, Alien etc....they all mostly hold up simply because of the level and density of the visual aesthetic applied. Trek actually has that same level from 1979 onward (hence okudagrams) though it gets a bit lazy when video monitors are used. There is basically no problem with the TOS aesthetic that can't be solved by detailing the living daylights out of anything too plain, and some light. Star Trek Continues helps show that. I don't even like the 50s aesthetics (I know it was made in the sixties, but it's aesthetics are earlier) in TOS and prefer the movie onwards, but it's not actually dated or wrong. Again, I don't even like Enterprise, but find the way they made all the civilian wear like something from the late fifties to be a nice touch...recognising TOS as sixties, the Movie Era as 80s and TNG as 80s / 90s in trends (for the most part...there's a lot of 30s and 40s in Tng Era) ...it's a good visual touch because that is very much how human fashion works. (Blade Runner does the 30s but through a late seventies lense.)

 

Your conclusion is exactly my point. That it's a mistake to use contemporary or near-futuristic tech and aesthetics to portray the far future. Because it will always look dated in a decade. It's best to choose a visual style and stick with it. That's what Star Wars has always done.

 

Well, no. You're trying to sell your audience on this being the future of the time they currently live in. You can't go from iPhones that can do pretty much anything to tricorders with CRT screens and breadbox computers.

There were times in TOS and TNG where it took hours to retrieve simple information from the ship's computer, that won't fly now when the masses have Google and can retrieve information in seconds. Star Wars profits from the fact they aren't depicting the future of this planet.