Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?

[Mirror Mirror]

I don't see how it looks either goofy or like a freak in any of its appearances.


Sounds more like an interior designer going on about how something was "so last century".

In this case that is true, its 1960 and looks it. I mean they made fun of it on ENT and most of us laughed as it was true. I am not saying it looks ugly, it is what it is. Its like a 66 impala, a classic but no one is gonna buy it as a 2017 car when we all know its a 60's car by the look. It just does not work claiming its a modern car.

 

[Tuskin38]

In this case that is true, its 1960 and looks it. I mean they made fun of it on ENT and most of us laughed as it was true. I am not saying it looks ugly, it is what it is. Its like a 66 impala, a classic but no one is gonna buy it as a 2017 car when we all know its a 60's car by the look. It just does not work claiming its a modern car.

We're the minority here.

 

[Longinus]

In this case that is true, its 1960 and looks it. I mean they made fun of it on ENT and most of us laughed as it was true. I am not saying it looks ugly, it is what it is. Its like a 66 impala, a classic but no one is gonna buy it as a 2017 car when we all know its a 60's car by the look. It just does not work claiming its a modern car.

It's a ship from 2245. Why should it follow the design aesthetic of 2017? (Not talking about the details and effects quality here.)

 

[Mirror Mirror]

We're the minority here.

And this will always boggle my mind. Its so clear and easy to see, but folks have blinders on and I simply can not understand it

It's a ship from 2245. Why should it follow the design aesthetic of 2017? (Not talking about the details and effects quality here.)

Its design lines and body style and shaping. Its older in style and design than the NX, its a model T in its form and design. You can't hide this. Even the TMP design does not look as archaic and simplistic and I am not talking about the texture here. This is simply clear as day, like your papaw driving up in an 80 year old car and claiming he just bought it new off the lot from the factory.

I find it funny you are asking why should it looks what people 0f 2017 thinks the future looks like, well why should it look like 1966? When it can not fit the current line of ships?

 

[Albinator]

It's a ship from 2245. Why should it follow the design aesthetic of 2017? (Not talking about the details and effects quality here.)

It's a ship from 2245 designed in 1965. That's why.

Some have compared Trek aesthetics to Star Wars or Doctor Who and asked why Discovery couldn't do the same. But Star Wars has ship designs and aesthetics created in 1977 that still seem to look good in 2017 in ways Trek designs from 1997 don't.

As for Doctor Who, the throwback, cheesy, downright cornball designs and nods to the 60s are part of its goofy charm. Discovery is not about goofy charm. It's why the interiors from TOS worked in "Relics" and "Tribulations" and the ship itself worked in Enterprise. It wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

That said, movie designs from Trek in the 80s would still largely hold up today, and I attribute this and Star Wars, to budget. They had a level of detail and realism that simply didn't exist in TOS.

 

[Tosk]

And this will always boggle my mind. Its so clear and easy to see, but folks have blinders on and I simply can not understand it

Everyone has an opinion. But only some people insist that they are the ones who have the truth and everyone else is wrong.

 

[Longinus]

Its design lines and body style and shaping. Its older in style and design than the NX, its a model T in its form and design. You can't hide this. Even the TMP design does not look as archaic and simplistic and I am not talking about the texture here. This is simply clear as day, like your papaw driving up in an 80 year old car and claiming he just bought it new off the lot from the factory.

You seem to equate simple geometric shapes with archaic, and more organic streamlined shapes with advanced. This itself is pretty ironic, considering that Discovery has pretty simple geometric shapes. And of course the whole idea is wrong. Cars from the 50's often had rounded, organic shapes, even backwards arching fins, whereas cars from 80's had simple boxy geometric shapes. Yet the latter were more advanced. Now we again have more rounded shapes, but without extra frills. These things come and go and are not an indication technological advancement. Perhaps in fifty years it is fashionable for robotic cars to look like rococo chariots; who knows?

I find it funny you are asking why should it looks what people 0f 2017 thinks the future looks like, well why should it look like 1966?

I really don't think the real future will look at all like TOS or like DIS.

 

[Ithekro]

Consider this possibility. That starships in Starfleet might be designed by species with different aesthetic concerns, and the one that designed the basic lines of the Constitution-class was different from the one that designed the Crossfield-class or the Walker-class. To them, that it modern design. To a Vulcan that might seem odd, or an Andorian might call it cool and new. Who is to say it can't be a new design considering just how many species are in the United Federation of Planets.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Everyone has an opinion. But only some people insist that they are the ones who have the truth and everyone else is wrong.

Simple, does a model T's body shape look like it was built in 1990? This is not an Opinion, this is simply stating a fact.

You seem to equate simple geometric shapes with archaic, and more organic streamlined shapes with advanced. This itself is pretty ironic, considering that Discovery has pretty simple geometric shapes. And of course the whole idea is wrong. Cars from the 50's often had rounded, organic shapes, even backwards arching fins, whereas cars from 80's had simple boxy geometric shapes. Yet the latter were more advanced. Now we again have more rounded shapes, but without extra frills. These things come and go and are not an indication technological advancement. Perhaps in fifty years it is fashionable for robotic cars to look like rococo chariots; who knows?


I really don't think the real future will look at all like TOS or like DIS.

And you seem to be missing the point. Machines and objects we design have shapes and much like a 1900 to 1920's care has simplistic shapes, the connie is the same way. Iconic has not a damned thing to do with claiming it was build AFTER the NX, which is a freaking corvette stingray next to the TOS connie.

You look at a 50's car and then an 80's and you know which is older. Its the lines, not simply the shape but also how its made, how its seemed together. The connie is an old style, its not a 50's its a model t- its too simplistic,too archaic in shape and design.

It was the base, notice EVERY ship has more advanced style than the connie. No one is gonna buy that clunker as more advanced than an NX, much less the walker.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Consider this possibility. That starships in Starfleet might be designed by species with different aesthetic concerns, and the one that designed the basic lines of the Constitution-class was different from the one that designed the Crossfield-class or the Walker-class. To them, that it modern design. To a Vulcan that might seem odd, or an Andorian might call it cool and new. Who is to say it can't be a new design considering just how many species are in the United Federation of Planets.

And we do not know or ever see this. And the connie is not an "aesthetic" thing, its a primitive thing. Can you in all honestly say its more advanced than the walker? Really? No normal person would, it looks old and simple and not "advanced" simple, just simple.

 

[Feron]

Simple, does a model T's body shape look like it was built in 1990? This is not an Opinion, this is simply stating a fact.



And you seem to be missing the point. Machines and objects we design have shapes and much like a 1900 to 1920's care has simplistic shapes, the connie is the same way. Iconic has not a damned thing to do with claiming it was build AFTER the NX, which is a freaking corvette stingray next to the TOS connie.

You look at a 50's car and then an 80's and you know which is older. Its the lines, not simply the shape but also how its made, how its seemed together. The connie is an old style, its not a 50's its a model t- its too simplistic,too archaic in shape and design.

It was the base, notice EVERY ship has more advanced style than the connie. No one is gonna buy that clunker as more advanced than an NX, much less the walker.

Right now there are a number of modern cars that are deliberately designed so that they look like their muscle car predecessors from the late 60s and early 70s.

The aesthetics of vehicle exteriors, especially fictional ones, is largely a matter of design choice rather than necessity.

On a fictional starship, there is not anything inherent in the TOS Connie that makes it "out of date" and needing revision.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

I liken the Connie to that of a submarine instead of a car. The Connie looks like a heavily armored vessel designed for prolonged deep space exploration, not vanity.

 

[fireproof78]

And this I will never understand, it stands out like a naked dude painted green at walmart.

Right now, I honestly don't think that there is a desire to understand, not an inability.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

Right now there are a number of modern cars that are deliberately designed so that they look like their muscle car predecessors from the late 60s and early 70s.

The aesthetics of vehicle exteriors, especially fictional ones, is largely a matter of design choice rather than necessity.

On a fictional starship, there is not anything inherent in the TOS Connie that makes it "out of date" and needing revision.

And o none of those cars shares the same shape and styling, they hint at it, but no one will confuse the two. This is what the TMP did with the TOS design. And if you claim nothing make the TOS look out of date next to an NX or walker, Nothing I can say will ever explain it.

Right now, I honestly don't think that there is a desire to understand, not an inability.

Its an inability, its like people saying blue is green. The design forms are like flashing red lights to me, they can't be hidden, I won't pretend they look modern or advanced and not simplistic and primitive. I have no clue how anyone can look at it and claim it is something it is not.

 

[Ithekro]

Take a concept car from the 1930s that projected what a car would look like in the 1990s and then put it next to an actual car from the 1990s. The concept car is probably going to look more advanced in design without being more advanced because the 1990s car designers went back to simple wind tunnel designed cars and all look like jelly beans.

What we have now in Star Trek are ship concepts designed in the 1960s and 2010s for the 2250s. None of them are going to look like that in the 2250, but both should be equally valid for the audience.

 

[fireproof78]

Its an inability, its like people saying blue is green. The design forms are like flashing red lights to me, they can't be hidden, I won't pretend they look modern or advanced and not simplistic and primitive. I have no clue how anyone can look at it and claim it is something it is not.

But, that's not a fact. That's your interpretation of the shapes and images.

 

[Tosk]

Simple, does a model T's body shape look like it was built in 1990? This is not an Opinion, this is simply stating a fact.

I'm not arguing what the ship looks like, I'm arguing the arrogance of "I see the truth and I can't understand why so many people do not share my vision!" The Enterprise has nothing to do with a Model-T. The comparison is worthless...in my opinion.

 

[Feron]

These cars are designed to look old! The design is outdated! No one would ever drive them, they know that an advanced car should look like a 2018 Prius. /sarc

Sorry, but the modern muscle cars are not the equivalent to the Connie refit. They are not exact clones, but the overall aesthetic is the same as their predecessor in most cases. Someone who isn't well-versed in cars would be hard pressed in many cases to point to one of each of these pairs and single out the old from the new just based upon the exteriors.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Longinus]

You look at a 50's car and then an 80's and you know which is older. Its the lines, not simply the shape but also how its made, how its seemed together. The connie is an old style, its not a 50's its a model t- its too simplistic,too archaic in shape and design.

You're just flat out wrong. Sure, we can probably tell which real car is newer by looking at them, because we know which look prevailed in which era, but it has nothing to do with one style being inherently more advanced. 80's cars have boxier and more simplistic shapes than 50's cars. That is actually a fact. It is also a fact that 80's cars are more advanced.

 

[Longinus]

Oh and one more thing about what 'real' future might look like. I actually think that TOS Connie has a better chance of being closer to real space ships than many latter Trek ships, exactly because of its streamlined (or simplistic) design aesthetic. I really doubt that real space engineers would bother with organically arching pylons or sleek aerodynamic shapes, as such things won't matter in the space. They'd use the simplest forms that get the job done and stick the part together most straightforward fashion possible.