Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by EJD1984, Jul 24, 2017.
I think my personal favorite was TUC........she looked damn good in that flick.
Right. It took me a while to enjoy Enterprise and Discovery at the start but I let go because, you know, that's how you enjoy stuff, but not being stuck on details and stuff that is, largely, unimportant.
Back to the discussion: was anyone else surprised (and disappointed) that they showed the bridge in the preview? I was hoping for a big suspenseful reveal next week. Then again, we got the same nonchalant introduction to the D-7 this week.
Absolutely. If done correctly TOS would look futuristic. I've always said that simplicity is futuristic. Take a look at what our own technology looks compared to 20 years ago. Mobile phones look simple, only a screen and plastic back side. TV's look like a painting on the wall. Speakers are hidden in appliances. We have a bladeless fans, we have cars with nothing but central touch screen and the wheel.
I wanted to make a 3d model of updated TOS interiors but unfortunately, all of my free time goes to my studies at this time, but I'm confident I can make TOS look futuristic with minimal changes.
Actually, everything that appears onscreen is canon, if the word means anything.
What people can't wrap their heads around is that the definition of canon does not include "without Internal contradiction or inconsistency."
I generally dislike the visual design of this series. Having said that, I think that their updating of TOS elements - uniforms, Talosians, the -Enterprise bridge - has been pretty good on the whole. A little rough, and rushed - if they were going to use this stuff every week on TV it ought to be refined IMO - but for props and sets that are going to appear for a few minutes in a couple of episodes, they've made an earnest effort to do right by the old stuff and they've largely succeeded.
Except that the original SW was 1) on a movie budget and 2) already retro-looking back in '77. It's a bit silly to compare the two.
I think as Star Trek fans we'd all like the franchise to be more consistent, both in terms of story and design, but also as adults we should expect that new showrunners and designers to try to make the franchise their own, and that means new designs. I think we should still expect the timeline to roughly fit, mind you, but that's my own personal view. Of course, I would've prefered if Discovery was set post-Nemesis, to avoid all those issues, but since they went for a prequel, that's the sort of thing we have to expect and accept.
Why not just say he doesn't like the design rather than do the whole, juvenile "only an idiot could disagree with me"? That's not the sort of thing an adult should be saying, and I don't think Schneider is an idiot.
That Doctor Who line I mentioned was literally from a new showrunner about a new design. There's no reason Trek can't do the same with their dialogue.
So do I, in a way, and yet they are VERY different from the TOS bridge (TFF's is the closest). We usually don't hear complaints about them.
Agreed about sensitivity. Something can still be meant as an insult, even if no one takes offense at it.
Correct. But reality and fiction aren't the same thing. Sometimes fiction needs to look unrealistic in a way. Take the so-called "aztec" plating on the ships since 1979. Real ships don't have such platings because they welded and then painted. But in order to give sci-fi ships scale they put more detail. It's a trick, but it works. Same with sets.
There's also no reason for them to do so. It bogs down the story when the audience should be sharp enough to understand that they just changed stuff. Not that I like it, but there's no reason to discuss it on the show explicitly.
No complaints because the changes are explained in dialogue (the refit/new ship). Many fans are ok with changes, but they want them explained. They don't want to be told what they saw is not what they saw (i.e. this was really the bridge the whole time, even when it obviously was not)
OK that's good for TMP and TFF.........but the bridge in the films changed with every film......
I looked up Memory Alpha and the only change I noted was from 5 to 6.
I'm actually fine with the new Disco bridge. It would have been nice if they kept the blue rectangular shape on the viewscreen, but it's fine. I'm honestly more interested what Number One's name is.
And what I'm telling you is that they have essentially no reason to want them explained, except entitlement. I know what I'm talking about.
No, every movie made changes. And between 2 and 3 there are no possible excuses.
For what it's worth did they ever outright say Beverly Crusher went to Starfleet Medical? Was it ever addressed in dialogue?
I found the Pulaski/Crusher thing most jarring in all my years of watching Trek. Bridge configurations were nothing compared to that.
Is it? Have you looked at, say, the Star Destroyer model or Death Star bridge in A New Hope and Rogue One side by side? They're probably more different than you think, and the originals definitely look cheaper than you remember.
Since they went for a prequel, we have to expect and accept that they're not going to make a prequel?
I'll buy that they needed to revise the designs for a modern production. What I don't believe is that what we've gotten is somehow inevitable, or natural, that this is what it'd look like if you brought Matt Jefferies forward in time from 1966 and put him in charge of the art department. If you'll look back a few pages, you'll note my major objections were the areas where the new bridge looked too cheap and retro, cheesier than the original, even. Discovery's visual style has never been very coherent, with itself or with the larger universe. It lacks a theme, a goal, an ethos. You can see the contradictions every week in the opening credits, where the TOS phaser turns into the DSC phaser, and is immediately followed by the TOS communicator. Is it a reimagining or a prequel? Are they updating the designs for modern standards or replacing them with stuff they think looks objectively better? Are earlier installments in the franchise foundational to the story they're telling now, or a campy joke they've outgrown? DSC doesn't need to answer those questions the same way I would, but it should have an answer, and I don't think it does.
An even better example, I think, is the D's bridge from Generations. As far as I remember it's never explained in dialogue and it was simply done to make the bridge look better in widescreen.
Yeah, they wanted more stuff on the sides of the frame.
This explains why Scotty absolutely lost his shit when M-5 did something as innocuous as turn off the lights in an unoccupied part of the ship. Starfleet must have been super ultra paranoid about even automatic power saving.
Gives a new perspective to multitronic units one through four being, in the words of Dr. Daystrom, "not entirely successful"
Separate names with a comma.