Why NOT update the designs?

[Brainsucker]

what about the interior ? The bridge design, etc ?

 

[aridas sofia]

THIS poster said it better than me. Just make it look functional, and not cardboard and plywood. I would add that it should be made to look like the sets are manufactured from exotic materials. In another thread I explained this further --

http://www.trekbbs.com/threads/showflat.php?Number=8301217#Post8301217

 

[Cary L. Brown]

Brainsucker said:Guys, don't you realise that defend the original design of TOS is just only make the Startrek XI become the next Austin Powers movie ?

That is very nearly the stupidest comment I've ever heard in this regard. (The "hinged pylons" one is worse...)

Austin Powers was an intentional spoof, taking all of the late-1960s cliches and overdoing them to outrageous levels. Those of us who were alive during that period (more posters on this board than you probably realized) "get it" that this was the period-specific "kitsch" and is no more or less "stupid" than, say, having some effeminate "boy" have hair that falls down over his face all the way to his chin.

Stupid styles come and go, but they never represent the mainstream. "Austin Powers" simply took all the stupidest styles of that time period and overemphasized them for comedic impact.

Trek had one real "period-specific" element of that nature... the hair and makeup styles worn by many (NOT ALL) of the actresses.

The ship design is not "period kitsch" in any way. The set design is not either. The costume design isn't (though you could argue that the women's miniskirts come close... you'll still see women today dressing in skirts every bit as short, after all).

Comparing Trek to Austin Powers is just you attempting to make a "kewl" argument in an attempt to "make everyone else shut up because they're stoopid." Not gonna work... too many of us "get it" already.

Just take example to James Bond. Defending it's old nature (sixties) only make it become something that we saw in Austin Power. So why force our will to make it stick to 60's design and not make it 2008 taste of design ?

Because 2008 "taste of design" isn't all that different from 1966 "taste of design" and only someone who's a child would really think so. The purely non-functional aspects may change (fins on cars were a stylistic choice, not a functional one, after all, but they're not really all that different from spoilers today... also entirely non-functional in nearly all cases.

The Enterprise has no fins (though MORE RECENT Trek ships have had fins... amusing, that, isn't it?) The Enterprise was primarily monotone in color scheme. 1960s cars often has panel-based multicolor schemes (even including wood inlays). In fact, the 1701-E is far more consistent with 1960s automotive design than the TOS 1701 is.

Argue with me on that one...