USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?
- Thread starter EJD1984
- Start date
Thought it wasn't a large enough sample size?
She felt it was too dated, and that distracted her from the overall film.I don't expect to generalize from her opinion to others.
She thought the TMP version was dated? Compared to what?
I'm intrigued simply because that's such an outlier view. Darn near everyone, from TOS purists to fans of John Eaves, seems to agree that the movie refit Enterprise was beautiful, a timeless classic.
I'm intrigued simply because that's such an outlier view. Darn near everyone, from TOS purists to fans of John Eaves, seems to agree that the movie refit Enterprise was beautiful, a timeless classic.
Just in general. She isn't a big scifi fan (at all) so her only really comparison is Star Wars. It was just distracting to her.
Look how many people avoid older (and by older, I mean recent, just not very recent) movies, series and video games just because the graphics or whatever aren't as good as what we have today. I have a friend who steadfastly refuses to watch Babylon 5 because the CGI's not great. Really. Just because casual viewers aren't bothered by details that would bother you or I doesn't mean stuff we'd accept won't bother them. And I guarantee that a TV series set during Kirk's time and with painstakingly recreated TOS-style sets and ships ala Star Trek Continues would be a complete flop regardless of content.
Why not?
Oh, I see. You've convinced yourself that those you disagree with are simply dishonest. That's great.
The point is that some things are exactly the same, and others are very similar, and others are generally similar, moreso in my opinion than the differences, which is why some people can and do confuse these two ships if shown from those angles.
Well I was going from what others in this thread said earlier. I'd be nice if we had a quote either way.
Is she aware that the Star Wars designs are older than TMP?
Sure. But that doesn't keep TMP's Enterprise from distracting her.
No ever said it was rational. I mean, I've always liked the TOS one over the TMP refit, but I'll take a Constitution class any day of the week over most of the other designs out there.
Who are these people? Are they older than 13? I honestly don't know anybody like that. Do they avoid classic black and white movies, too?
I suppose such people must exist, in the same way that, say, Scientologists or fans of Nickelback exist, but as to "how many" I'd assume they're vanishingly rare.
When I worked in retail, this was common among the 18 to 20 year olds that I worked with. I also encounter this attitude among clients in their mid-20s now.
Also, I like Nickelback.
I have friends who are pretty much like this. I'm 25.
Clearly, since you seem entirely unaware of what audiences respond to.
Are you kidding? Their cut-off point is way past that. A friend of mine who worked at HMV had these stories all the time.
Right, because like you think people who disagree with you are dishonest, the people who don't like the same things you like must be very rare.
Are you listening to yourself? Take a step back from being a giant Trek nerd for a second and understand that the general audience isn't like you. TOS is quaint and antiquated to them. If you want them to watch a show called Star Trek, it'll have to feel contemporary to them.
The only components that are EXACTLY the same are the deflector dish and part of the saucer rim. There are other similarities and there are many differences.
MY point is that these features alone aren't enough to conclude that one ship is literally a modification of the other. The differences, after all, are substantial.
GODDAMMIT I wish Eaglemoss would hurry up with that model kit! Not just because I'm genuinely curious how much the two designs influenced each other, but because the Shepard is one of my favorite ships in the Binary Fleet.
My sister in law is 25 years old. She generally avoids watching movies that are older than she is except musicals, biographies, or anything involving motown.
I have two cousins who refuse to watch any scifi movie that is either older than 5 years or doesn't have Wesley Snipes in it. My aunt, on the other hand, pretty much hates everything that came out after 1988.
Would it shock you to learn that the general audience has a wide variety of tastes and that most people don't have the same sensibilities you do?
One might infer that it's an age thing, or that I live among some isolated tribe, but t'ain't so. I live in a college town. My circles of friends include people with a ridiculously diverse range of backgrounds — from all over the country, and the world — and most of them are millennials, in their 20s. Some are students, some are townies. They include geeky types (into SF, comics, etc.) and steadfast non-geeks. They just don't include anyone who limits their tastes to products of the last 20 years.
Seriously, why would anyone do that to themselves? We live in an age when all the best stuff from every era is more easily available than ever before. Why deprive yourself of it?
My friend's wife will not watch a B&W film. Simply will not do it. We can't even get her to watch Young Frankenstein because it's monochromatic. She's 41 by the way. She's also not unique in her circle of friends.
Okay, like I already said, I'll grant that such people exist. Sounds like lots of folks here are popping up to mention examples of one or two that they know. (Which is one or two more than I know, FWIW.)
But does anyone know a lot of them? Or think they're common? A critical mass, let alone a majority?
Because it seems to me that if mass tastes were actually that narrow, much of the current media landscape just wouldn't make any sense at all. The market wouldn't support it.
(For that matter, does anyone think such tastes are rational? I haven't seen anyone here make such claims about themselves.)
But does anyone know a lot of them? Or think they're common? A critical mass, let alone a majority?
Because it seems to me that if mass tastes were actually that narrow, much of the current media landscape just wouldn't make any sense at all. The market wouldn't support it.
(For that matter, does anyone think such tastes are rational? I haven't seen anyone here make such claims about themselves.)
I don't think they're uncommon. My dad won't watch classic Doctor Who because he thinks it looks too hokey. I struggle with 1930s-1950s sci-fi sometimes, and I'm pretty fond of cheese. And I sometimes find even that stuff more watchable than some TV effects from the '80s and '90s, which are now in that unfortunate dead zone where they don't yet look charming.
That said, I don't know many people who want the TOS elements to look cheap and dated. You can honor the original designs without making them of the same materials or keeping them exactly the same. Pre-Discovery, how many people would have said the TOS phaser would be laughed off the screen today? Instead, the prop guys tweaked the design, gave it heft and made it work. It's one of the most universally acclaimed aspects of the show, from what I've seen.
That said, I don't know many people who want the TOS elements to look cheap and dated. You can honor the original designs without making them of the same materials or keeping them exactly the same. Pre-Discovery, how many people would have said the TOS phaser would be laughed off the screen today? Instead, the prop guys tweaked the design, gave it heft and made it work. It's one of the most universally acclaimed aspects of the show, from what I've seen.
True dat. But I've already had the "design is separate from production values" discussion entirely too many times around here, so when Belz posited that "a TV series set during Kirk's time and with painstakingly recreated TOS-style sets and ships ala Star Trek Continues would be a complete flop regardless of content," I just let that part slide past.
It also occurs to me that if we do imagine that some critical mass of the "general audience" is so narrowminded, for whatever quixotic reason — gotta be color, widescreen, CGI, HD, etc., etc!... — that it stands to reason another thing they'd disdain would be subtitles. So even if the goal were to cater to that crowd, certain creative choices on DSC would still stand out as inexplicable...
It also occurs to me that if we do imagine that some critical mass of the "general audience" is so narrowminded, for whatever quixotic reason — gotta be color, widescreen, CGI, HD, etc., etc!... — that it stands to reason another thing they'd disdain would be subtitles. So even if the goal were to cater to that crowd, certain creative choices on DSC would still stand out as inexplicable...
Similar threads
