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

[fireproof78]

They'd use the simplest forms that get the job done and stick the part together most straightforward fashion possible

I could be misremembering, and I'll have to dig a little more, but I thought I read that the TOS designs were to be very modular and that engines and bridges and other parts could be swapped out with relative ease?

That's why I liked the Josephs' designs; they really felt like a Starfleet that was very modular and flexible.

 

[Midquest]

I'm firmly in the camp that thinks that the original 1960s ship, while beautiful in its own right, would look woefully dated today unless its lines and geometry were changed. It's simply a matter of design philosophies. You can place it next to other designs of its era and find similarities that simply cannot be found in science fiction designs today. I recognize that people see this differently, but I can't help but think that it only looks otherwise because we are used to seeing it.

The notion that we can't judge the design because we don't know what designs could look like in the future the strikes me as profoundly silly. By that standard, we can't deem a design too 2017 either. It simply ignores the fascinating real world process of design, which strikes me as a real loss.

At least that's my take.

 

[137th Gebirg]

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.

Exactly why Jefferies designed her that way.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

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

No, it is basic design man.

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.

It has everything to do with it. How cars were made changed, and Star trek honestly mimicked that. Look at an old roadster from the 1910's or 1920's and you will see "smooth" shapes, but very simplistic next to the smooth shapes of the 40's and 50's. Smooth and simplistic are not the same thing.

The same thing can be saw with airplanes. You can watch it unfold in most designed items.

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.

It has a damned lot to do with which is more advanced in styling and shape. In many ways those "boxy" 80's cars are not more simplistic, they are just boxy vs curvy but from a design point of view most are more advanced stylistically in many ways. Not all, but they are.

its all irrelevant anyhow, its a done deal, they over real a tiny hand full of fans and went with what most people would think. They redesigned the connie to fit and we will have to see how it looks.

 

[Tuskin38]

No one is gonna buy that clunker as more advanced than an NX.

I disagree here.

The NX is a prototype with tons of exposed parts very visible rivets and seems and hull panels, TOS and later ships don't have that.

They do have some panelling but nothing as primitive as the NX's, no rivets, bolts other signs of it being machined.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

I disagree here.

The NX is a prototype with tons of exposed parts very visible rivets and seems, TOS and later ships don't have that.

You can, but be honest most non trekies would not. The NX is clearly newer. Its not even a tough call.

 

[Jesse1066]

No, it is basic design man.



It has everything to do with it. How cars were made changed, and Star trek honestly mimicked that. Look at an old roadster from the 1910's or 1920's and you will see "smooth" shapes, but very simplistic next to the smooth shapes of the 40's and 50's. Smooth and simplistic are not the same thing.

The same thing can be saw with airplanes. You can watch it unfold in most designed items.



It has a damned lot to do with which is more advanced in styling and shape. In many ways those "boxy" 80's cars are not more simplistic, they are just boxy vs curvy but from a design point of view most are more advanced stylistically in many ways. Not all, but they are.

its all irrelevant anyhow, its a done deal, they over real a tiny hand full of fans and went with what most people would think. They redesigned the connie to fit and we will have to see how it looks.

Style is just style. There's nothing inherently more advanced about the styling of an eighties car vs a fifties car.

 

[Tuskin38]

You can, but be honest most non trekies would not. The NX is clearly newer. Its not even a tough call.

So the NX looks more advanced the the Ent-D?

 

[Longinus]

It has a damned lot to do with which is more advanced in styling and shape. In many ways those "boxy" 80's cars are not more simplistic, they are just boxy vs curvy but from a design point of view most are more advanced stylistically in many ways. Not all, but they are.

Please define 'stylistically advanced' in some concrete manner.

 

[fireproof78]

No, it is basic design man.

No, it's interpretation.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

So the NX looks more advanced the the Ent-D?

Indeed it does. To most non fans it will be based off the texture, one simply looks older. Shape wise, not really, it could be older of younger than the form of the Galaxy as they do share some deign forms.

Please define 'stylistically advanced' in some concrete manner.

I have for the sake of this argument, a dozen times over,

 

[Tuskin38]

Indeed it does. To most non fans it will be based off the texture, one simply looks older. Shape wise, not really, it could be older of younger than the form of the Galaxy as they do share some deign forms.

You cannot seriously believe that.

I can't take you seriously anymore.

The NX-01 looks like something we could build today, the Galaxy-Class does not.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

You cannot seriously believe that.

I can't take you seriously anymore. The NX-01 looks like something we could build today, the Galaxy-Class does not.

To non fans, it will likely look older man. I mean not a good modern render, but lets be honest about how many people will view is based off say an old screen cap. That is just based off texture, not the actual design itself, which I agree with you on. The Galaxy is almost abstract and fluid in design. Where as the NX is curved, but has more solid and heavily defined shapes.

 

[Tuskin38]

The texture is fine too, especially in HD, on Blu-Ray.

 

[fireproof78]

The Galaxy is almost abstract and fluid in design.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

The texture is fine too, especially in HD, on Blu-Ray.

Could be, those I have never seen. I know on some of the older views I have seen it looks rough at spots. But then sometimes that ship looked killer and sometime it did not. Like the Intrepid it needs set angels to look really good. But, I shell cede your point on the hull.

 

[Longinus]

I have for the sake of this argument, a dozen times over,

You have not. You talked about simple shapes, but when confronted by 80's cars you said it was really not about that after all. You just keep repeating 'advanced stylistically' like it actually meant something.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

You have not. You talked about simple shapes, but when confronted by 80's cars you said it was really not about that after all. You just keep repeating 'advanced stylistically' like it actually meant something.

Ya know what, never mind.

 

[CaptainMurdock]

I like the Connie's simplicity because it's practical. If it gets damaged somewhere, It's simplistic design makes it easier to repair. With ships like the NX-01 and Walker class they have some strange design choices. The complex shapes and angles on it would make it a disaster to repair in a short amount of time if the materials aren't there. It doesn't come off as practical but rather impractical and hard to repair.

 

[fireproof78]

I like the Connie's simplicity because it's practical. If it gets damaged somewhere, It's simplistic design makes it easier to repair. With ships like the NX-01 and Walker class they have some strange design choices. The complex shapes and angles on it would make it a disaster to repair in a short amount of time if the materials aren't there. It doesn't come off as practical but rather impractical and hard to repair.

I wonder if this example will make sense, but I liken it to Republic Y-Wings vs. Rebel Y-Wings. While the basic shapes are the same, the surface details given a different impression.