Must be a modern view,but DSC need to eventually fit into the TOS era, not to change the 1701 to fit the post ENT ships.
Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?
- Thread starter INACTIVERedDwarf
- Start date
DSC doesn’t need to fit visually.
They did say they will do minor things, like make the computer screens more colourful as a reference to TOS, but they’re not going to completely change the aesthetic.
Anyways the Constitution class is older than the Discovery, why would it change to fit an older ship?
Right before Kirk the 1701 was given an extensive refit, both in hardware and software. Why assume he did not get the latest tech for his ship?
No, no, no. The TOS ships always looked like these ones, but our TV sets were too small to notice it
It would be upgraded to resemble the discovery.
I think the last Trek gaming system I played was Decipher's, back in the early 2000's. Wasn't terribly impressed by it. I re-tooled the White Wolf World of Darkness system for use as a Trek game and it worked really well. I further modified it for Battlestar Galactica and "Immortals", the latter being based on the "Highlander" series and movies, interacting directly with other WoD character classes.
Uma Therman is too old to convincingly play a 16 year old high school student
A 1968 Camaro does not belong in a movie about 1930s gangsters.
William Shatner is not well known for being a successful singer/songwriter
Donald Trump does not have a reputation for being overly articulate, thoughtful or compassionate
Nicholas Cage would be an absolute terrible choice to play Superman
The TOS Enterprise is not -- and for a long time, has not been -- a credible design for modern TV audiences.
These are facts.
Bit of a mixed bag there. Opinions should never be expressed under the pretense of "facts".
Opinion, and not well thought-out argument. She can if you take into account many of the CG-enhanced "youth" algorithms they use in movies these days. They're quite good, you know. Just ask Carrie Fisher and Peter Cushing.
Not well thought-out argument. It can if the movie involves time travel.
Opinion. Some members of the official William Shatner fan club would disagree.
Opinion. People who voted for Donald Trump would disagree.
Opinion. Some members of the official Nicholas Cage fan club would disagree.
Opinion. I and many others here disagree.
Last edited:
The only thing left up to opinion at this point is whether or not the TOS Enterprise, a design that is by all objective measures not a credible depiction of a futuristic starship, should, in spite of this, still be used for the sake of consistency. Some say it should, because they like it. Others say it shouldn't, because the design really is outdated and not everyone who sees it is going to like it. Both of those positions are also factual, but the question about which fact should matter more to the producers of the show really comes down to an estimate of the audience's expectations.
So would the overall audience of Star Trek Disocvery prefer to see something that was originally designed in 1964, loosely inspired by Forbidden Planet and the cover art of 1950s pulp magazines? Or would they prefer to see something that was designed using modern techniques and themes, loosely inspired by 50 years of Star Trek?
So would the overall audience of Star Trek Disocvery prefer to see something that was originally designed in 1964, loosely inspired by Forbidden Planet and the cover art of 1950s pulp magazines? Or would they prefer to see something that was designed using modern techniques and themes, loosely inspired by 50 years of Star Trek?
You're really having a hard time discerning between "Opinion" and "Fact", aren't you?
We must also remember that Connie is not the hero ship of the show. If and when it will be seen, it will be briefly, as an homage. And to work as an homage, it must be at least somewhat faithful. And for such a brief appearance it is not really a big deal whether the design is exactly up to modern standards. Hell, in a way they usually depict ships in DIS, briefly and poorly lit, you can barely see how they look anyway.
Data points to facts. Opinions are interpretations of what the facts mean.
Are you disputing the fact that the TOS Enterprise looks like it was designed in 1964? Or are you disputing the fact that none of the starships designed for Discovery or the Kelvinverse films look like they were designed in 1964? Or perhaps you are disputing the fact that two different mechanical designs from two different artists 50 years apart are unlikely to look like they were designed by the same person unless the second artist deliberately makes his design similar to the former? In which case, the only way the TOS Enterprise won't look like an incongruity is if the other ships in Discovery were designed in a way similar to Matt Jeffries art style.
Which of these facts is in dispute, exactly?
The only reason the TOS Connie looks "old" to some people is that they know when it was on the TV.
Show someone who had never seen any Trek photos of multiple Trek ships and they would most likely not be able to point at one and say: "This is older than that other one over there."
The cleaner look of the TOS ship actually looks more advanced to me than ones that have a bunch of stuff all over the surface and so on.
The "data" you cited in your earlier email were not facts that you claimed them to be, as I was able to dispute each one of them logically. It's okay to have opinions. Don't try to fool anyone into thinking they're gospel.
Yes, I category dispute that "opinion". See my post on the subject as to why, based on historical facts established during its design phase by Gene Roddenberry and Matt Jefferies, the Enterprise was like nothing else that was ever designed in the 60's. That's how facts work. Take note.
Last edited:
The first claim is debatable, but only to the extent that it depends on presentation. If you put enough work into the design to modernize it, it wouldn't actually look so strange compared to Discovery-era ship designs... but then, after modernization it wouldn't really be the TOS design anymore.
On the other hand, the major argument IN FAVOR of using the TOS design is that it is "iconic" and everyone already knows what it looks like anyway. So really, is there anyone who DOESN'T know when the original design was on TV?
That is a matter of opinion. Knowing what I do about aerospace and aviation design, Discovery actually looks like the more advanced design. But this is a matter of expectations: as technology becomes more advanced and more sophisticated, it's easier (and customary) to add stuff to an existing design anywhere it'll fit than try to hide it under a trap door behind some sort of retractable mechanism. History tells us that spacecraft and aircraft that try to do too much internally wind up becoming compromised by subsequent technological developments because the internal components are more difficult to modify or adapt to fit the new hardware requirements, so in my opinion, the TOS Enterprise looks like something the Federation would have simply abandoned wholesale in favor of a more adaptable and more versatile design, which is how we wound up with the TMP Enterprise in the first place.
Even the TMP Enterprise wouldn't look like it completely fits in with the Discovery ships, but it's MUCH less of a jarring transition than the TOS version. By the time they've changed everything on that old design to actually fit into the Discoverse, they'll have basically reinvented the Phase-II Enterprise.[/quote]
None of the ships in Star Trek are a particularly credible depiction of a futuristic starship. If they were, it wouldn't look like Star Trek.
Some say the older design should be used whether it looks outdated or not, others say a newer design would match the overall visuals of the show better. Is this not a factual statement?
It wasn't a question of whether or not the Enterprise looks like anything else designed in the 60s. It's a question of whether or not anything else designed AFTER it uses the same artistic styles and design conventions. The fact is, they do not; TOS Enterprise uses simpler geometries, shapes and textures in its design that pretty much everything that came after it. Later science fiction productions in the late 60s and early 70s created expectations that the old design simply couldn't meet. 2001: A Space Odyssey came out just 2 years later, with model and set designs that represented a quantum leap above anything Star Trek had ever attempted to show before. It is another historical fact that, in the post "Odyssey" world, the TOS Enterprise would look hokey and cheap on the big screen by comparison. This was the whole reason it was redesigned for TMP.
That, also, is an historical fact: Rodenberry himself went out of his way to have the look of the Enterprise significantly updated. The design was updated FURTHER when they realized they were building for a motion picture and not a television series, indicating that even the producers at the time understood that a higher level of detail would be required to be passable to moviegoing audiences. The bar for televised science fiction has not gotten much lower than that, and ironically the TNG era Trek -- which used film-qauality miniatures and sets on a daily basis -- is largely to blame for this. That means that Discovery isn't just being compared to TOS anymore, it's also being compared to TNG, Stargate, BSG, NuBSG, star wars, The Expanse, Babylon-5, etc.
Many of them are credible. They've just never been realistic.
Fair enough.
Similar threads
