Would you like looks, uniforms and such re-imagined?

[Balok's Decoy]

I'd rather they don't attempt slavish fealty to the TOS look. We had TOS. It is wonderful and beautiful. But that was TOS. I want to see what DSC looks like. Every series has its own distinct "look" (maybe with the exception of VOY). I want DSC to have its own unique style and identity.

 

[uniderth]

Does this topic really need to be rehashed AGAIN? At this point I can quote, verbatim, everybody's viewpoints on this issue.

 

[psCargile]

^^ So ... not a cheap knock-off of Star Trek Continues?

 

[Kor]

I don't expect new Trek to look exactly like TOS. But TOS had a wonderfully sleek-lined, minimalist and clean aesthetic, reflective of the forward-thinking modernist design trends from such luminaries of that time as Eero Saarinen, Ray and Charles Eames, Frank Lloyd Wright, Henry Kloss, George Nelson, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, et al., with a healthy dose of no-frills functional industrialism befitting a space navy like Starfleet.

I would love for a new Trek production to display a big-budget version of retro-futurism that takes inspiration from such brilliant design sources, rather than the cluttered and dirty junk of contemporary sci-fi.

"Less is more." Am I right, or what?

Kor

 

[mos6507]

This. End of topic.

Too much focus and whining on the looks of the show. It's about stories people, not shirts.

The look matters otherwise they should produce a radio-drama.

 

[Nerys Myk]

The look matters otherwise they should produce a radio-drama.

Oh course the look matters. The question is what the look should be.

 

[gantoris]

TOS movies had the best uniforms. Those red jackets etc. They actually looked like uniforms instead of pajamas.

 

[Nerys Myk]

TOS movies had the best uniforms. Those red jackets etc. They actually looked like uniforms instead of pajamas.

Nah, the best uniforms were on Enterprise.

 

[Shikarnov]

I'm with Bry_Sinclair on this one. If the producers want to diverge from the established universe, then they should choose a setting a century or two after Nemesis. Or establish an alternate universe. But the producers chose this time and this setting for a reason, and they should try to remain faithful to that. To do otherwise would be like writing a book that takes place in Saudi Arabia and having everybody be liberal white hedonists that are more concerned with the Kama Sutra than with the Quran.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm with Bry_Sinclair on this one. If the producers want to diverge from the established universe, then they should choose a setting a century or two after Nemesis. Or establish an alternate universe. But the producers chose this time and this setting for a reason, and they should try to remain faithful to that. To do otherwise would be like writing a book that takes place in Saudi Arabia and having everybody be liberal white hedonists that are more concerned with the Kama Sutra than with the Quran.

Saudi Arabia is a real place.

 

[Shikarnov]

Saudi Arabia is a real place.

And Star Trek is a real property with many established attributes. What's your point?

 

[Balok's Decoy]

And Star Trek is a real property with many established attributes. What's your point?

Star Trek is a made up fantasy world that writers and directors can do absolutely anything they want in. Saudi Arabia is a real place that exists in real life with real people. Your analogy just doesn't work at all.

 

[Shikarnov]

Star Trek is a made up fantasy world that writers and directors can do absolutely anything they want in. Saudi Arabia is a real place that exists in real life with real people. Your analogy just doesn't work at all.

It's just a matter of degree. Alter some makeup and costuming and we have a debate, because for many those things aren't fundamental to the Star Trek brand. But for others, they are. Of course the writers can do anything they want -- as could I if I was writing a work of fiction (even if I chose to set it in the real world) -- but it doesn't mean they should.

 

[Nerys Myk]

And Star Trek is a real property with many established attributes. What's your point?

This

Star Trek is a made up fantasy world that writers and directors can do absolutely anything they want in. Saudi Arabia is a real place that exists in real life with real people. Your analogy just doesn't work at all.

It's just a matter of degree. Alter some makeup and costuming and we have a debate, because for many those things aren't fundamental to the Star Trek brand. But for others, they are. Of course the writers can do anything they want -- as could I if I was writing a work of fiction (even if I chose to set it in the real world) -- but it doesn't mean they should.

The should do what will make the show a success. Adherence to 50 year old designs for the sake of 1% of the potential audience probably isn't that.

 

[The Librarian]

There is no problem with changing the uniforms to be sleeker than the sweaters worn in The Cage, or to update the computers. That's all surface cosmetics that change with the times and current fashion, both in and out of universe. Even leaving aside simple changes in production technology - no more need for super-bright colors for tiny screens and showing off your fancy new color TVs, etc - it's not as if it's unrealistic. The US Army is currently floating yet another uniform change (back to WWII styling for Class As), and they can't push a button to spit out free new uniforms. If the Pentagon can change its mind about uniform styles every few years, so can Starfleet.

To me, the main aesthetic that they should be aiming for is the relatively sleek and austere look, without a lot of extra flash and unnecessary decoration, and I think with the ship's interior in particular modern technology will let them achieve that in ways they could only hint at in TOS.

 

[Mage]

The look matters otherwise they should produce a radio-drama.

Ofcourse it should look good. But all this bullshit about how the uniforms need to be almost exactly like the ones used in The Cage, or new looks for Klingons will rape the show, and how a ship that we have never seen before is just an insult to fans blablablablabla.....

Besides, Babylon 5 look pretty crappy half of the time. Shows produced in the same years look a lot better. And still, people loved it!! Why? Good stories, not because of good uniforms.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

As we fans are being asked to flip the bill for this STAR TREK series, Discovery's got the funds to -- rightfully -- say "to hell with canon."

I still think this is hilarious. Evidently, soon after ENT was cancelled, fans did a complete one-eighty. People used to jump way the hell down ENT's throat for even the slightest perceived violation of canon. Now, all of a sudden, nobody cares about canon anymore?

 

[Nerys Myk]

I still think this is hilarious. Evidently, soon after ENT was cancelled, fans did a complete one-eighty. People used to jump way the hell down ENT's throat for even the slightest perceived violation of canon. Now, all of a sudden, nobody cares about canon anymore?

 

[uniderth]

I still think this is hilarious. Evidently, soon after ENT was cancelled, fans did a complete one-eighty. People used to jump way the hell down ENT's throat for even the slightest perceived violation of canon. Now, all of a sudden, nobody cares about canon anymore?

Where's the Uber-like button?

 

[Longinus]

I still think this is hilarious. Evidently, soon after ENT was cancelled, fans did a complete one-eighty. People used to jump way the hell down ENT's throat for even the slightest perceived violation of canon. Now, all of a sudden, nobody cares about canon anymore?

There are a lot of people who do.

Now, it is not like I think every little detail and throwaway line need to line up perfectly, but it seems pretty counterproductive to say that you set the show in a specific time at the prime universe and then change everything about that era.