What is it with you and making up quotes and arguments for other people? What I said is that you can certainly overlook some changes. If the changes in DSC have no narrative impact, isn't that something you can get over?
Why do you keep bringing up narrative impact? This is not a thread about narrative impact. Sure, maybe I'd be more willing to overlook DSC's flaws if there were fewer of them, but that's theoretical, and it doesn't help to keep reminding me that there are substantive things I don't like about the show in general when I'm talking specifically about their weird love-hate relationship with earlier Trek production design, and that that dysfunctional relationship with the legacy they're cashing in on is not a mandatory, requisite, or even, in this day and age,
expected consequence of revisiting an older property.
But you're not discussing the design on its merits. You're complaining that it's different. I'm telling you that of course it is. I'm suggesting that you take a different perspective because obviously it's preventing you from enjoying Star Trek. You can't control what CBS and Paramount do with the franchise, but you can control how you view it.
It's all written down. You can just go back and check and see why we're arguing in the first place. Here, I'll help:
Part I: The bridge could be better:
I'm still taking in what I think about the look of the bridge. Adapting the TOS Look into the Disco Look is tough to do, if that's the goal thrust upon someone, anyone. Taking that into account, I think they did a good job. If you think it sounds like there's a "but...", you're right. I generally prefer a blending of two styles to come across looking as if it were one. The TFF bridge does this. It looks like a TNG version of the TOS bridge but it comes across to me as one thing. The Disco Bridge, from the angle I see, looks like a TOS/DSC mash-up. It comes across as two things.
I think you're on to something, here. The perimeter consoles look like they do a good job splitting the difference (though I'm not hot on the rainbow pseudo-controls at the very top), and the steps and railing seem good. The helm console seems really self-consiously retro, though. And small, compared to how much larger the rest of the bridge looks. It reminds me of something from an old fan-film, or a traveling Trek attraction.
Part II: No one put a gun to their heads and forced them to do things the way they're doing them:
Surely you've seen the conversations at some point when this was discussed numerous times in the last year and a half, no?
Leaving aside the fact that a set made in the 60s won't cut it nowadays, it's entirely expected that when making a new series with its own designs, they'd make a new version of the Enterprise bridge. The thing is, the only people who care about it not being exactly the same as the TOS one is die-hard fans. So why should CBS care?
I gotta say, that was all a lot more compelling before they started cranking out Star Wars films set contemporaneously with the originals where all the sets look exactly how you remember them (though not, I emphasize, how they actually were).
I'm not the one who made them set a show in the TOS era. If you're making a Star Trek period piece, I really don't understand this terror of
making a Star Trek period piece. There were no shortage of alternatives that would allow them to rationalize an all-new look-and-feel.
So, that's it. There we are. "The bridge is not DSC-y enough" and "It is not required that it be as different as it is to meet modern standards; see examples."
So do I, see. But the thing is that view is, and I include myself in that, selfish. We want new Trek to look and feel like old Trek because that's the one we know. But that's not thinking of the larger picture; the fact that television and culture have changed, aesthetic and sensibiliies have changed, etc. and Trek has to adapt to that if it's trying to portray our possible future, and make good ratings.
No, it doesn't. Discovery almost certainly has a smaller audience than
any prior Trek show, and it's almost certainly close to the number of people who will watch anything at all with "Star Trek" in the name and pay for the privilege. Also, what's this with "Trek has to adapt"? I thought it was merely
expected that any creative person working on Star Trek would want to radically revise prior art because we're all a bunch of egomaniacs who think we can do it better, not something they
had to do to be acceptable to modern audiences. You've been very clear that it's not something anyone
has to do, that it's merely change for change's sake because that's somehow better or more compelling than saying everything has to be overtly, blatantly different or else it'll be laughed off television, which you keep saying you're not saying, and then say again.
And Trek's dated futurism has very little to do with the set design. World War III being a nuclear exchange between east and west. Bans on genetic engineering. Distaste towards technological augmentation. The complete absence of any kind of social web or mass-media. Magical technology like transporters, artificial gravity, inertial dampeners, deflector dishes, or dermal regenerators that are based more on production convenience and tradition than plausibility. A lot of these things are baked into making a continuation of a fifty-year-old science fiction show that hasn't been seriously interested in futurism in about forty years. If being futuristic is a priority, they need to do a square-one remake. And they should! I'd love to see a Star Trek where people have ID implants, or the planet of the week is in a roiling endless series of political crises because their SpaceBook shard is malfunctioning and only showing people things that make them angry, or advanced medical technology that's based on genetically tailored medicines and nanotechnolgy instead of health-rays that regrow skin and bone with no side effects or danger.
But, they're not. So why, if the setting is going to be unchallenging Trek comfort food that's long since become an alternate fantasy-world rather than an extrapolation of how present-day humanity might put aside their differences and go have space adventures, should it not look like unchallenging Trek comfort food?
(I'm not saying it's impossible to make good stories in the classic Trek universe, I'm saying it's impossible to make good futurism in it. Before you accuse me of being a sourpuss again.)
Not tech, design. There are a number of differences but it's hard to show without comparing screenshots, which apparently I'm not allowed to do.
Be my guest. I just asked you to do it from memory because you were wrong when you said the sets and models weren't updated because
they were already movie-quality forty years ago, and I didn't want to make it easy for you to move the goalposts again
when you changed your mind and said, no, actually, they were just as blatantly different as DSC is from TOS, and everybody can tell, the changes aren't subtle at all and I'm completely wrong when I said they split the difference between looking like what you remember, while actually being extremely detailed and slick in a very modern way, which DSC has avoided even trying to do (except with the Starfleet hand props).
Of course, it was expected that DSC wouldn't try to fit with earlier Trek, because it's unprecedented for Star Trek, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Babylon 5, Terminator, Alien, or any other sci-fi property you care to name to look like an older version of itself when revisiting that older version in a modern production.
