Star Trek: All of Em

[superduperman]

It's not.

It's just updating the look to fit in with modern expectations.

I guess I'm confused as to what that means.

[thwhtGuardian]

I guess I'm confused as to what that means.

I'm not sure what there is to be confused about, it's very straight forward. The effects budget for a single episode these days is nearly as much as an entire season of the original series and so people expect it to look like it.

[superduperman]

I'm not sure what there is to be confused about, it's very straight forward. The effects budget for a single episode these days is nearly as much as an entire season of the original series and so people expect it to look like it.

What I mean is I'm confused about how they are going to reconcile the technology differences between the two shows.

[Ascended]

What I mean is I'm confused about how they are going to reconcile the technology differences between the two shows.

Who says there's going to be differences?

We only see the Enterprise in a few short scenes on Discovery, but the only thing I recall it doing that the original show didn't have was the holograms, and as I recall Pike had that stuff uninstalled for....reasons. The Enterprise looks a lot nicer in the contemporary shows but that's just fx budgets; it's the same ship....it just looks better today than it did in the 60's.

Discovery has technology beyond that of other Starfleet ships of its (original) era, but that can be written off by Discovery being an experimental, off-the-books R&D ship.

[thwhtGuardian]

What I mean is I'm confused about how they are going to reconcile the technology differences between the two shows.

They're not, you just have to accept that giant reel to reel computers, analog toggles, switches, levers and incandescent light bulbs aren't what the future looks like anymore.

The show is fiction, and part of its drive is to tantalize the audience with visions of what the future might look like and what that vision is has changed dramatically since the 1960's. Computer banks literally took up whole floors of buildings when the show was conceived, so a couple wardrobe sized boxes housing a whole computer was very futuristic in 1966...but now I hold a computer with a million times more power than that in my pocket...so what sense would it make to show a 6' tall reel to reel computer and sell it as the future?
Time marches on so you just have to accept that and march on with it.

[WebLurker]

What I mean is I'm confused about how they are going to reconcile the technology differences between the two shows.

There isn't an in-universe explanation; the Powers That Be wanted to make things different for varying reasons, at the expense of internal logic and consistency. At this point, I think its best to just accept the new shows for what they are and not worry about the internal inconsistencies with the rest of the franchise.

[thwhtGuardian]

There isn't an in-universe explanation; the Powers That Be wanted to make things different for varying reasons, at the expense of internal logic and consistency. At this point, I think its best to just accept the new shows for what they are and not worry about the internal inconsistencies with the rest of the franchise.

Except it's not at the expense of internal logic or consistency. Star Trek is a TV show that's 55 years old now and the look of the original series was simply the best they could do at the time and now they can do better so it looks different. The fiction is that the Federation and all its technology is the future, the shows are adaptations of that idea and are limited to the technology of the times they were made so differences in design and technology is to be expected and is not counter to the premise or logic of the show.

[Celgress]

Except it's not at the expense of internal logic or consistency. Star Trek is a TV show that's 55 years old now and the look of the original series was simply the best they could do at the time and now they can do better so it looks different. The fiction is that the Federation and all its technology is the future, the shows are adaptations of that idea and are limited to the technology of the times they were made so differences in design and technology is to be expected and is not counter to the premise or logic of the show.

I don't agree with your argument. For example, I think Star Wars has done a fantastic job maintaining aesthetic consistency unlike Star Trek (and it was made in the 1970s). Everything in modern Star Wars looks like it belongs in that setting and time unlike modern Star Trek especially the prequel material such as Discovery. Not even trying to maintain consistency is lazy. "Modernizing" the look for the sake of modernizing it is short-sighted and violates internal universe logic.

[thwhtGuardian]

I don't agree with your argument. For example, I think Star Wars has done a fantastic job maintaining aesthetic consistency unlike Star Trek (and it was made in the 1970s). Everything in modern Star Wars looks like it belongs in that setting and time unlike modern Star Trek especially the prequel material such as Discovery. Not even trying to maintain consistency is lazy. "Modernizing" the look for the sake of modernizing it is short-sighted and violates internal universe logic.

That's because Star Wars was designed specifically so it wouldn't look dated while everything about Star Trek original series is very much rooted in the era it was produced. I like 60's kitsch as much as the next guy...but that's not what the future will look like, and if that's your goal, to give the audience a look at what the future could look like, then that is going to change with time.

It's the same with stuff like Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, they're great for what they are and I love their sort of art decco looks...but if you were going to adapt those today and you didn't want to come off as campy you'd need to update the style because again the style used was very much a product of its time.

[ChrisIII]

What's kind of interesting is that often in TOS the Enterprise's outside was often inconsistent (Although this was probably fixed for the 00's CG remaster which redid pretty much all the model shots). It's most noticeable in the Nachelles. It's because they used stock footage from the Cage's Enterprise shots at times.

Basically the model used for the Cage had tips on the Nacelles along with circular 'vents' at the end. The regular series model added some kind of bulb to the end and got rid of the tips, also the Nacelles red parts sort of had that spinning light pattern.


Here's a more detailed explanation, from a Hallmark ornament web site no less! https://hallmarkstartrekornaments.co...k-ornaments-6/

[Celgress]

That's because Star Wars was designed specifically so it wouldn't look dated while everything about Star Trek original series is very much rooted in the era it was produced. I like 60's kitsch as much as the next guy...but that's not what the future will look like, and if that's your goal, to give the audience a look at what the future could look like, then that is going to change with time...

You aren't grasping my statement. As a former fan, I honestly don't care about it being made in the 1960s. Enterprise and Discovery should have maintained the general style of that era and before because it is where they fit in the fictional timeline. IMO, this is a significant part of why those series have failed to a large degree. They want to be more or rather different than what they are. If the style is too "dated" fine then set those series post-Voyager the problem is solved, otherwise, stick with the aesthetic already established.

[thwhtGuardian]

You aren't grasping my statement. As a former fan, I honestly don't care about it being made in the 1960s. Enterprise and Discovery should have maintained the general style of that era and before because it is where they fit in the fictional timeline. IMO, this is a significant part of why those series have failed to a large degree. They want to be more or rather different than what they are. If the style is too "dated" fine then set those series post-Voyager the problem is solved, otherwise, stick with the aesthetic already established.

I grasp it fine, it just doesn't hold any water. As I said, unless you're going for a kitsch like comedy it makes zero sense to present the future as having outdated technology and design elements.


And Discovery didn't fail, it's doing so well it's spawned two spin offs and Enterprise had more episodes than the original series.

[ChrisIII]

Trials and Tribulations sort of had 60's aesthetics but it sort of had to because it was using stock footage (Plus it was kind of played with the comedy, especially the Klingons bit).


Enterprise also had the Mirror Universe episodes which had the mirror crew start wearing TOS style clothes (as the episode established that the Tholian Web's Defiant wound up in that universe, but back in time) and sets. Although the Gorn and Tholians were updated (The latter being somewhat more justified as we never did get a good look at them anyway).


Some TNG and DS9 ships still use the TOS movie aesthetics but that was pretty much entirely because they used the Enterprise bridge set from the first four films to save money. Ditto with the Excelsior, Miranda and Oberth ships still being used nearly a century later.

[Ascended]

I think the Star Wars comparison is a little lacking. SW doesn't have to reflect any changes in aesthetics or real world technological developments because it's completely removed from our reality. It's a long time ago in a galaxy far away. But you'll find that the space battles are far more dynamic now, the lightsaber fights more heavily choreographed. The franchise and ILM have always been on the cutting edge of fx technology. But their ships were more detailed than TOS to begin with, aren't meant to look slick and clean, and don't require much change on that front; it's what they can do and how they move that changes.


But Star Trek is supposed to represent a better tomorrow for us here in the real world. That means the target is always shifting forward. And it's not like the Enterprise "really" looks different, it's the same ship....just with the details that the tv budget couldn't provide in the 60's. It's not that modern versions of the Enterprise don't look like the Enterprise, it's that they look more like the Enterprise than the Enterprise did sixty years ago.

[Donald]

I don't agree with your argument. For example, I think Star Wars has done a fantastic job maintaining aesthetic consistency unlike Star Trek (and it was made in the 1970s). Everything in modern Star Wars looks like it belongs in that setting and time unlike modern Star Trek especially the prequel material such as Discovery. Not even trying to maintain consistency is lazy. "Modernizing" the look for the sake of modernizing it is short-sighted and violates internal universe logic.

Star Wars is a dozen or so movies grouped in a close time frame versus how many Star Trek episodes over how many decades? It's easier to keep Star Wars consistent with the limited set pieces it has vs Trek.

SW also doesn't depend on technology for storylines like ST does. SW is pew-pew blowem up and ST is reversing polarity while bypassing the neutron flow capicitor gobbledegook, requiring more set pieces with technology in the forefront. It's more believable to do that with more up to date technology.