Why NOT update the designs?

[J47]

Realistically, every person here knows that the vision of the future depicted in the original series is in no way, shape, or form be reflective of what that time period will actually look like. Indeed, in twenty years I'm sure the Enterprise-D will look like a joke. But the Enterprise as depicted in TOS, with raised keys & dials and hand-held levers for the turbolift, is out-dated, if not just plain tacky. I'm not suggesting they should throw the book out - by all means, maintain the basic integrity of the designs (don't change the Bridge layout, for example) - but there is no reason to keep up this facade simply to please the purists. If people can buy Chris Pine as William Shatner as James T Kirk, I'm sure people can buy a bridge that doesn't have transparent cubes as ship controls.

 

[Tom]

Indeed this is the same argument used with Enterprise, realism vs. traditionalism. Where is the balance in Trek XI concidering is a partial reboot? Personally i would not mind the go-go mini skirts making a comeback.. but thats just me

Sometimes trends do make comebacks and perhaps (if you ignore Enterprise) if you concider WWWIII did regress Earth a bit (see First Contact) so perhaps an older style like what we had in the 60's can make a partial comeback. Who knows.

 

[archeryguy1701]

In my opinion, I think it would be an interesting idea to go with. I would enjoy seeing a modernised depiction of the 1701. I hope they do it.

 

[Kegek]

They are going to do it. I find it hard to believe otherwise.

Debating whether they should is more academic; however, I do think they should. That's not the same as being happy with what they come up with - it may not be to my aesthetic taste - but if you're going to make a movie with a reasonable budget, let the budget show.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Compare the original and upgraded shuttle cockpits:

http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/mccand/shuttle.html

CRTs and mechanical gauges are replaced by MEDs.

Notably, a great many buttons and switches are retained.

Buttons and switches - lit cubes or not - are superior to flat touchplate technology in many respects. You program your microwave with a touchplate not because it's better but because it's cheaper.

Keep the buttons and switches on the Enterprise; just update the displays and overall design.

 

[Basill]

Personally, I prefer buttons over touch screens, and not for purist reasons. There is something about the feedback from a clicking button that tends to satisfy my mind more. I am especially fond of the kind used in the original series, and those in the TOS films even more so. I also like the idea of buttons that can be reassigned function and position. I've seen some interesting stuff being developed along those lines for a few years now.

I am not particularly fond of dials or switches, but I can easily make use of them just as I can touch screens. I have no doubt that they all serve their purpose, but give me clicky, glowy buttons any day.

 

[FalTorPan]

Starship Polaris said:
Buttons and switches - lit cubes or not - are superior to flat touchplate technology in many respects. You program your microwave with a touchplate not because it's better but because it's cheaper.

Keep the buttons and switches on the Enterprise; just update the displays and overall design.

I agree. :thumbsup:

 

[Basil]

I doubt 200 years from now TV screens and touchscreen controls will be used anyway -- I doubt we'll be using them 50 years from now. Any view of the farflung future is likely to be comically inaccurate, so why not go for nostalgia? Done correctly, it can add that sense of romance lacking in Trek.

 

[aridas sofia]

I think the original sets, with their plain surfaces, just need added depth and texturing to communicate weird materials used in their construction. The interfaces need to reveal themselves as being capable of more than human-computer speech interaction, with not only 2D displays but holographics, animated paper, and more, weirder stuff we can't imagine but that is the stuff you pay a guy like Syd Mead to dream up. All this, out of the plain black surfaces of the computer displays. You want a TOS LCARS? Sure. It can show up on the expansive blank spaces as well. The only static elements are the gel buttons -- the multifunction "control keys" of the station.

The brilliant and far-thinking designs of Jefferies and others that defined the look of Star Trek time and again reveal this kind of flexibility to reimagining. They manage, by avoiding too many defining elements, to allow themselves to be redefined in light of whatever new technology is developed. Interestingly, the supposedly "more up to date" approach of the later incarnations, with their depth of detail tying them to a very specific vision of the future, have aged worse than the original, at least from a conceptual design point of view.

That being said, the materials used in rebuilding the TOS original sets should reflect a real attention to weirdness. Railings that soften when you smash into them, chairs that look like the originals but lack the stalk that connects seat to base so they just float, plain walls that can convert at a request to large displays... Add depth and magic to what was there, rather than change the forms themselves.

As for the ship itself, show me a "realistic" design for a space-warping starship, and I'll let you know if the original 1701 design need apply. It certainly looks more functional than all its ultra-designed progeny. Again, I'd show that much of the ship's equipment sits behind protective panels that open to reveal the torp tubes, RCS thrusters, tractor emitters, etc. when needed. But the shape itself? It's iconic. Geez... if you had some design in your posession that had managed to find its way into the hearts of millions, why would you screw with it?

One should practice suitable caution when contemplating cutting off one's nose in an effort to "improve" one's face...

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Let's leave Michael Jackson out of this.

 

[Samuel T. Cogley]

J47 said:
If people can buy Chris Pine as William Shatner as James T Kirk, I'm sure people can buy a bridge that doesn't have transparent cubes as ship controls.

Well, it's premature to say that people will accept Chris Pine as James T. Kirk, but I agree with the intent of your post.

 

[Just_Bob]

Starship Polaris said:
Compare the original and upgraded shuttle cockpits:

http://vision.arc.nasa.gov/personnel/mccand/shuttle.html

CRTs and mechanical gauges are replaced by MEDs.

Notably, a great many buttons and switches are retained.

Buttons and switches - lit cubes or not - are superior to flat touchplate technology in many respects. You program your microwave with a touchplate not because it's better but because it's cheaper.

Keep the buttons and switches on the Enterprise; just update the displays and overall design.

I concur completely. By the way, excellent sig.

 

[Peacemaker]

They should not update the designs because it is impossible to get the nacelle caps correct, and gods forbid the nacelle caps not exactly resemble the ones in TOS.

 

[igrokbok]

I prefer buttons with tactile feedback over touch pads anyday. Amd when I want to turn volume up, I prefer the big easy to use knob on my stereo receiver ti increasing "bars" one at a time with a push button.

And as far as the assertion that TOS doesn't look like the future, unless you have a time machine to prove otherwise, the futuristic look of TOS is as good a guess as any.

 

[MadBaggins]

A VERY high percentage of Star Trek fans (Trekkies) suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. There will be MASS tutting and "that's not supposed to be like that!" cries in the cinema on opening night if the changes are too egregious.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

igrokbok said:
And as far as the assertion that TOS doesn't look like the future, unless you have a time machine to prove otherwise, the futuristic look of TOS is as good a guess as any.

Well, it might look like the future assuming that design and manufacturing technologies regress...

 

[starburst]

MadBaggins said:
A VERY high percentage of Star Trek fans (Trekkies) suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. There will be MASS tutting and "that's not supposed to be like that!" cries in the cinema on opening night if the changes are too egregious.

Those people will be the same ones who are banging on about a recast, theres nothing anyone can do about either, things are going to change even if it retains the same basic look and feel.

I think theres likely to be a mix of buttons and plasma/LCDs with touch screens...hopefully to maintain the idea that it is set between Enterprise and TNG

One thing they will have to get rid of (sorry guys) is them hand holdy things in the turbolifts, there was no real need for them and it was obvious that by the 24C they were a long forgotten feature.

Aside from the Enterprise I would like to see a better designed shuttle

 

[aridas sofia]

The issue of recasting is entirely different from the issue of redesigning. I for one would have preferred a recasting in 1979, but it wasn't going to happen. I also had my doubts about redesigning in 1979, but it turned out very well. That's the real issue, not should there be a redesign, but what form should the redesign take? I think a TMP-calibre job is more than acceptable. Indeed it is preferable. I think much of the design work on ENT was very good, if out of touch with the amount of time that series was supposed to be precede TOS. So it can be done, but I have little confidence it will be done, because the tastes of today's audiences is so different from those of the 1960s.

This last fact is the strongest reason for a redesign. But it also places front and center the question of what Star Trek really is. Is it a contemporary national myth shared by us all, or the property of one corporation? Is it an art form, or a commodity? We know the answers to these questions, but there is truth to the other point of view as well. Myths are reinterpreted for each generation, the Mona Lisa isn't. Hamlet can be set in a 21st century White House, or in Elsinore castle.

I don't contest the wisdom or "right" of a filmmaker to toy with the look of Star Trek. I am simply expressing my preference for once -- one damn time -- to see those designs given their due. The idiots that clamor on about how those designs look "cardboard" or "cheap" or "dated" don't have a clue. Just as I will acknowledge that Romeo and Juliet can work beautifully in a re-envisioned setting, I'll assert again and again that it is just as legitimate to see it as it was first shown. Shakespeare in Love would have been a great movie set in 1990s New York, but it was even more interesting done with an eye to the detail of late-Elizabethan England.

Give the work of the people that made this myth its due, just once. Respect the fact the look, sound, and words all contributed to the effect. At least you will be going with something that is tried and true, that motivated generations of people to dress up and build sets and models and make movies. You'll be going with a look that has been deemed worthy of preservation by the Smithsonian itself.

And you'll be making me happy. And that's really all I care about.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Because it's not a reboot, that's why there shouldn't be too much "updating".

Note that there's a difference between updating the whole thing and just making it a bit more clear what was already there in the first place.

 

[jonnyskywatcher]

I hope they just ignore the outcry of the fans and redesign everything, because the technology in TOS just looks stupid. When the MU crew in In a Mirror, Darkly goes to to the TOS ship, it just looks ridiculous. This is the future? Yeah, right.