But there's nothing 'wrong' with the design we've been familiar with for 40+ years.
One of the main reasons for this is a desire to appeal to consumers, and a need to differentiate one product from another for marketing reasons.
No, but it's a fictional reality. Whenever suspension of disbelief is involved, there's a fine line between cosmetic changes and backstory details that can easily be disregarded, and those that are significant enough to yank one out of the narrative experience.
Most of the dissension isn't even rational. It's crying about zeroes starting registry numbers and how a movie made in 2008 doesn't look exactly the same as a 60s TV show. It's Captain Robert April, MattJC and The Wormhole. They're Team Stewey.
I disagree that the original design aesthetic looks dated. The production values do, sure—but not the design aesthetic. Others around here have made the case in much more detail; suffice it to say that I agree with them.
But here's the thing if you go back and look at the Jupiter two, the Sub from Voyage to the Bottom of the see, Time Tunnel's command center, and Star Trek (the big sci fi series of the sixties) The look the same in the basics of how they were produced. Smooth lines, little in the way of detailing. Now yes the Jupiter two and the Enterprise are both unique ships in their own right but neither one of them is super detailed. When you look at them when they are in their universes they fit, but we aren't taking the 60's version of Star Trek which was (And you can't argue this) Designed around Television which has a different resolution and quality thatn Film (I've stated this before TV has always been trying to catch up to the resolution quality of Film and film equipment has changed VERY LITTLE since it began Better cameras, new types of film but all the techniuques are the same. Television has gone from film, to video recording, and is now heading to digital recording, why? As tv gets more advanced, as what you watch it on evolves the mediums you use begin to look dated. The things you designed to look good on the small screen when blown up on bigger screens don't look as good.
First, the Enterprise model couldn't be "super detailed" because of economics, but that actually worked to the advantage of the designer, who didn't want it to look welded or bolted together. It was smooth and seamless for a reason--to make it look like it was constructed with advanced technology. It doesn't look like something we're familiar with because it isn't.
I've built models, what it's too expensive to add a few panel lines and do a color wash with some paint on the model please it has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the limits of TV technology.. If the 1930 german silent film Metropolis could look superfuturistic on the budget the director had in the 1930's Star Trek could have done the same thing. The problems were that the limits of tv cameras dictated the look of the show. Back in the sixties I agree when futuristic looking = clean and shiny yes it looked very futuristic for its time. Now as we've advanced in out fabrication we have found that even with ULTRASONIC Welding and Plasma welding that there are still going to be seams.(The designer at the time thought there would be new production methods that would create a seamless weld, but seeing as there is always a joint where you weld together matter (has something to do with physics guys) But you also have to remember the medium (god why is no one reading this stuff I mean I took classes in how to make tv shows in school...) the less detail on the models the better it worked because those first gen color tv cameras had certain limitations, it was just as much as the functions for the cameras as it was Jefferies Ideas. And if you had read what I wrote, EVERY sci fi show in the sixties had that clean look to it. Star Trek wasn't breaking any design barriers, they were doing the same stuff, just they came up with different and unique ships. The concepts were the same clean, detailess= futuristic. That future look isn't what we think of now in the 21st century because the 21 century came 40 years passed and a quarter of the way through the future looked the same as the past, so we now have a more sophisticated idea of what the future will look like and in another 40 years that may be outdated too. The future is always evovling. It is not stuck to what one design crew did 40, 30, 20, 10 or even 5 years ago..
