Not to a 2017 audience, which is why they're not doing it.
If curious people tune in, look at this and go "oh, that again," Star Trek is done on TV.
The truth about Discovery and the Prime universe.
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Not to a 2017 audience, which is why they're not doing it.
If curious people tune in, look at this and go "oh, that again," Star Trek is done on TV.
Just because the buttons on the TOS bridge can be depicted as liquid metal, shapeshifting tech, it doesn't mean the vast expanse of blank black lucite doesn't light up with lcars touch interactive screens or that holograms can't be projected above them depicting say, fractures in one of the crystals or an approaching ship.
A sixties modernist aesthetic is just fine. There's a big following when it comes to architecture and interior design and decor based on just such an aesthetic. Palm Springs, CA is practically overflowing with it. I would love to see all that stuff in a future setting.
Kor
Kor
Sure, but it's usually more of a nostalgic kind of thing.
I could see them using something like that for a comedy, or a more tongue in cheek kind of thing, but not something that actually wants to be taken seriously.
I could see them using something like that for a comedy, or a more tongue in cheek kind of thing, but not something that actually wants to be taken seriously.
I've been wondering if we might get some kind of holographic displays. They do seem to be one of the big go to things for futurisitc displays, although I guess that could also be a good reason not to do it.
This stance is just completely incomprehensible to me. I kinda get the angst over the tech, but not the style in general. Fashion, furniture, general shapes of things etc. 60's is so long ago that you can easily evoke the style without looking dated (you really couldn't do the same with 90's yet.) Everyone will see it as intentional nod to the era in which the series originated.
Shapes is the key word. Once you break up all those straight lines and add curves and detail necessary in modern set and prop design to create visual interest at high definition, it ends up looking like something else anyway. TOS to TMP is perfect example. They didn't intentionally try to make TOS look dated, they just updated it for the times.
Take the refit; It stays very close to the original and really only adds curves and details and breaks up the repeating cylindrical shape, yet to me it looks completely different and doesn't remind me of the original at a glance.
Basically the changes in both design and tech that are necessary in order to not make the show look dated or low-budget are going to shift the look far away from TOS era. Any attempt to stay close to the look of say, the Cage, would give the show a period look and require explanation as part of the story. That goes double if they try to limit the tech as well. And even if they did all of that for the sake of argument, they'd still need to up the detail level and add curves for visual interest, and that would in turn make it look different than the Pike years.
Take the refit; It stays very close to the original and really only adds curves and details and breaks up the repeating cylindrical shape, yet to me it looks completely different and doesn't remind me of the original at a glance.
Basically the changes in both design and tech that are necessary in order to not make the show look dated or low-budget are going to shift the look far away from TOS era. Any attempt to stay close to the look of say, the Cage, would give the show a period look and require explanation as part of the story. That goes double if they try to limit the tech as well. And even if they did all of that for the sake of argument, they'd still need to up the detail level and add curves for visual interest, and that would in turn make it look different than the Pike years.
But unless the computers whirr and make all the other goofy 1960's sci-fi computer noises, talk in a shrill voice, why keep the aesthetic when they're clearly not doing the same things under the hood?
In TOS' world, the computers worked as we saw. No touchscreens, no holographic readouts, magnetic tapes whirring under the hood etc. If you're gonna change the functions - arguably the most important thing - you might as well change the form equally.
Well part of the beauty of the show not being about a Constitution-class starships is that they can get way with never showing off the inside of one, while still showing the outside like it is just a starship in the fleet. The point of even showing one is to establish a when the series takes place without having to do much of anything else. Its is basically "oh this takes place around the time of Kirk and Spock" moment. It is within ten years or so of that, but it is close enough for the general audience to tell what that means. That ship design, even today after three Kevin Timeline films, is recognizable enough that people will still know what it means when they see it on screen. And that is all it would need to do. Nothing else. Everything about the aliens could look different. The tech inside the Discovery could look like something based on our modern day, but stick an old style Connie on the screen and people will know "when" the story takes place. That's the beauty of having something iconic around. It means you can place the audience into an era or location without needing to expound on it too much. Your world building is at least partly done for you because you've set your story up in a known time period in a known franchise. This is Star Trek. The audience will get it. Than the writers and directors can go off on their merry way without ever having to touch on it again. Having one familiar thing is sometimes all you need. The more iconic the easier it is, and there is very little today that is as iconic as that ship design.
Last edited:
How many people would even care, though? This whole conversation seems a bit weird to me because what people really want are great stories and interesting character. Whether or not there's a Constitution class starship in the background seems like a such a minor detail.
My suspicion would be a significant portion of the fan base. Yes we want the stories and characters that make trek special, yes we want the challenging moral questions and real world analogy, but for a fair few fans the true stars of the show have always been the ships.
It doesn't.
They used the godawful '91 makeover for those manips. If they'd just waited a couple of years they'd have had the all-new accurate restoration to work with. 
Last edited:
And people wonder why Trek hardly ever broke into mainstream popularity?
Oh yeah!? You wanna know which ultra-successful movies had oodles of fanservice, and a director who put massive amounts of effort into creating and beauty-shotting his technically-amazing toys?
Bay's Transformers.
Erm, yay? I guess...
Last edited:
I hope somebody informs Google.
I type in 'Bussard Interstellar Ramscoop' and my enjoyment of #speculativeengineeringp4wn is spoiled by copious views of the 1701D (ample nacelles, my ****!).
Anyway, I'm just off to catch up on my technical journals...
Another forking universe? Great. 
I hope somebody informs Google.
I type in 'Bussard Interstellar Ramscoop' and my enjoyment of #speculativeengineeringp4wn is spoiled by copious views of the 1701D (ample nacelles, my ****!).
Anyway, I'm just off to catch up on my technical journals...
I'm not saying Enterprise C+ aren't bussards. I'm saying the 1701-Null nacelle domes aren't bussards.
Oh yeah!? You wanna know which ultra-successful movies had oodles of fanservice, and a director who put massive amounts of effort into creating and beauty-shotting his technically-amazing toys?
Bay's Transformers.
Erm, yay? I guess...
And guess how the die-hard Transformers fans feel about the Bay movies? Just take everything people are saying here about the TOS ship designs, aesthetic, and hypothetical modern audience reaction to same, and port it over to discussions about a 1980s low-detail boxy cartoon.
Some things never change.
Actually, they're just spinning doohickeys in front of blinking lights. But the folks concerned have been calling them bussard intakes for decades now, so that's what they are.
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/tos_ships.htm
http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/tos_ships.htm
I want Discovery to have Voice Activated Doors, like this:
When do you think will we get the first picture of the Discovery Bridge?
Similar threads
- Locked
