Art is subjective. Everything becomes dated eventually. Just because someone prefers retrofuturistic and art deco designs over modern day designs doesn't mean they have no eye for things. That's just condescending.
USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Art is subjective. Everything becomes dated eventually. Just because someone prefers retrofuturistic and art deco designs over modern day designs doesn't mean they have no eye for things. That's just condescending.
Because only Jackie Brown was any good. And I might be mistaken about that.
While I half agree, I do think some things transcend their era and become timeless. And art is only subjective in the broadest of senses, and largely because the last fifty years went a bit daft. Art Deco (Which the Connie is itself in many ways) is something that is timeless when done well or even competently (which is why the new mirror universe styles are quit nice, versus the if it ain’t baroque don’t fix it klingon outfits.)
I agree.
The balls look even sillier. If there's one thing you expect in that era of sci-fi, it's spheres and saucers and rockets. And give me a break with tech manuals. Those are fun but ultimately pointless.
I don't believe my tone was combative. Retro futurism specifically refers to "the use of a style or aesthetic considered futuristic in an earlier era". It's not meant to imply it was retro at the time it was made. My local radio station plays "retro hits" which are from the 1980s, but of course they would not have called them that in 1985.
I agree 100%. It's a good thing I didn't say that at all, isn't it?
Nothing's really ever retro. Case in point, synthwave. Or the Renaissance. The Renaissance was a bunch of Roman Hipsters.
I'll agree that if there was one thing that always felt like it needed changing on the original Enterprise design, it was the nacelle struts. Not because they belong to any particular school or era of design, but simply because they look somewhat unstable, given their positioning and the apparent weight they're meant to support. Granted we know nothing about 23rd-century materials technology or construction, still, the ones on the TMP refit look much sturdier.
I offer myself as a contrary data point. I wasn't there (wasn't even born when Star Trek was originally on the air), but I have always loved its design sense. It was brilliant, beautiful, fascinating, and inspiring. I'm also inclined to disagree that it looks like any preexisting design school, "atomic age" or "'60s futurism" or any other... there really isn't anything else, on film or TV or SF cover paintings or anywhere else, from the '60s or earlier, that has the same look and feel as Star Trek. It's in a class by itself.
The Enterprise refit design for TMP and the subsequent films (and its associated aesthetic), with many of the same people involved but more time and money, managed somehow to capture lightning in a bottle and actually improve on the original. It is still gorgeous today.
Nothing since then, however, has managed to do that. TNG (and successors) and ENT and ST09 and DSC have all tried, and each has its own (somewhat) distinctive look, but none measures up to the original. The closest I think anything from any of those projects has come to capturing a lasting look of its own was the uniforms, specifically the DS9/VOY version with the department color on the shoulders, which are fairly simple but IMHO still look timeless and classy. Other than that? Not so much.
Outside the franchise, FWIW, I have never, ever liked the Star Wars aesthetic. OTOH, I thought Babylon 5 had a brilliant, distinctive, and convincingly "authentic" look that still holds up today.
Word. No argument with you on any of this.
Still talking past each other, I think. There's a difference between saying TOS designs evoke a specific period (call it retrofuturism or what-you-will; to me it's the 2260s, because as mentioned above it really doesn't look much like other stuff from the 1950s-'60s), and saying it looks "dated" (which is typically used as a pejorative term equivalent to old-fashioned, obsolete, quaint, tacky, etc.).
There's also ambiguity about the meaning of "modern TV/film standards." In terms of standards for production (cinematography, lighting, etc.) and special effects, naturally everyone wants to see those be as "modern" and sophisticated as possible. In terms of design, though, I couldn't give less of a fuck about "modern film/TV standards." Most of it is pretty forgettable, and even the memorable bits will mostly look dated in a decade... "so 2017." Very, very little current TV/film SF design really captures the kind of timeless quality you get from TOS and TMP, and what does will endure just fine on its own precisely because it's timeless, and not tied to the aesthetic fads or technology standards of its day.
(Arguably DSC has failed on both counts, in a number of ways. In terms of production and effects quality, it often looks shoddy and subpar — and if those looks reflect a deliberate choice by somebody on the production side, as some here have argued, then that somebody has terrible taste. In terms of design, nothing it has done rises to the level of "timeless and memorable," not by a long shot.)
Are you saying a baby can run the whole ship?
Pulp Fiction was decent
(and by decent I mean one of freaking Top 10 movies of all time)
I don't think we're talking past each other at all. We simply fundamentally disagree on the baseline premise. That's ok, though. There is absolutely nothing timeless about TOS or TMP from my point of view, and it is from yours. That's ok.
Yeah, it is not possible to make someone grasp something they have no wish to understand. They keep trying to say I am claiming things I am not saying and ignoring those that I am saying.
The issue is, they are claiming it is NOT of that design style. I love Art deco for instance, but I always know what it is. Lawman, for instance, keeps ignoring what I m saying about the art style. Claming I am using a logical fallacy because I pointed out it used a clashing art style.
What they are doing is claiming it is something it is not. Its like you have art that is all of a set type, say "Post Impressionism". And in the middle there is once piece that is of another art style, say "Pop Art". I point out "That is not a Post Impressionist piece so does not fit with this collection.". It is not about the style you like, its pointing out that set style, which both I and Pixel magic gave you the freaking name of, does not belong. It simply stands out.
Yeah the TOS design is not timeless, its a very set style and with a very set decade. Trek ships can be dated by decade and design style very easily.
I still think the '79 refit, at least in terms of exteriors, is pretty timeless. Mostly because it didn't try to emulate Star Wars.
Are those the only two options? O_o
I would not call it timeless, but she is classic. IMO, that design did set the tone for hull textures. IMO she is a lovely ship, but she does have her own dated features, but she does not have the Space age styling of the TOS ship. She is really the base for most other ship designs.
Agreed. The art deco nacelles and boring boxy neck are the only dated looking features. The secondary hull and saucer for the most part would still look fine as a modern scifi object.
I agree, for the most part they did a fantastic job on the old girl. But some people simply can not accept reality that it has features which date it and do not flow with modern designs.
Its really not opinion man, its a set art style. It is also no used in modern sci-fi objects. Its just how it is, the current modern art styles do not use things like that. So things that do, hearken back to an era when they were in use. Like Car Fins.
Similar threads
