> @docbrown#0652 said: > I keep telling myself that Discovery is going to fail so hard and then I'm remind that older Trek fans are not the majority anymore. CBS doesn't care about making money off older trek fans because that not the crowd they are aiming for.
Ironically, they didn't want us back then, either......they cancelled TOS because the audience they got wasn't biddable enough to obey the ads. The Millenials are way more to their liking.
Has anyone considered the fact that literally nobody heard of Discovery prior to the Axanar fundraiser, and that they are both set in the same time period with the same war as a backdrop? Surely they imagined it differently: Axanar was supposed to be a one-shot fan- made movie and Discovery is a professionally crafted series, so Axanar relied heavily on the existing TOS aesthetic for what is essentially an homage project, while Discovery relied on the state of the franchise as it is today for its appeal to modern audiences.
The projects were aimed at different crowds, and thus seek different appearances. It is not bait and switch, though because Discovery from its first announcement was never going to look like Axanar or the TOS pilots. It was always planned as a new phase in the Trek story intended to appeal to modern audiences. Any belief that it was ever supposed to mimic The Cage era visuals is supported only in the imaginations of those who wanted it to look that way.
The one issue I have is with paying as much to see each episode as an equivalent amount of time in a movie theater. Generously assume 50 minute episodes, which makes three episodes costing $18 the same price as a two and a half hour feature film.
And yes, I know I can watch I Love Lucy, but I have an eidetic memory so reruns are for me a waste of time. As a sci-fi nerd I am singularly uninterested in crime dramas, and the more graphic the depictions of the crimes the less they interest me. That leaves soap operas and fake contest shows, neither of which keep me interested for long.
So, while I retain high hopes for Discovery, (its success might ignite a new round of SF television shows which do not feature reanimated corpses, while its failure could insure another generation without Trek on TV,) I am not going to buy it. It's just not worth it for me. You, of course, are welcome to hold other opinions on the subject.
If Discovery doesn't get its own MMO, I assume there will be tie ins, and I am going to speculate further that there will be content locked behind a Discovery paywall, such as a Starship Discovery Subscription Code which gives All Access subscribers the ship sponsored by CBS as a way to encourage subscriptions.
I wonder how many new subscribers CBS would get for a digital ship unlock?
Axanar followed the same design aesthetics from the 60's, and that was able to raise over a million bucks. Clearly 'campy and dated' still has a market
The funny thing there is fans' sense of scale. That amazing "over a million bucks" isn't enough to pay for ONE DAY of shooting on most major productions. It doesn't actually say "massive untapped market" to the big kids at all. Kind of the opposite, really.
Axanar followed the same design aesthetics from the 60's, and that was able to raise over a million bucks. Clearly 'campy and dated' still has a market
The funny thing there is fans' sense of scale. That amazing "over a million bucks" isn't enough to pay for ONE DAY of shooting on most major productions. It doesn't actually say "massive untapped market" to the big kids at all. Kind of the opposite, really.
Absolutely, in industry terms a million dollars is nothing. In terms of a movie's box office take, it's laughable.
But.
It still shows the amount of interest (and the willingness to actually hand over cashmoney) from a fanbase who, around here, would rather grind a dozen plus, rather than spend cashmoney (which is what the game actually Needs to keep going ) That's the significant, salient takeaway from the Axanar funding. Just as the takeaway from its aesthetic, is immediately being recognizable as mid-23rd Century, in the Prime Timeline
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Flawed comparison though: JJ Trek was worldwide cinema released. Axanar was a 20ish minute online short. They're two entirely different platforms, so income they raised individually, simply isn't comparable, and it's disingenuous to suggest that they are.
Unless I'm mistaken, anyone from any country anywhere in the world could contribute to Axanar via kickstarter. That pretty much makes it a worldwide audience too.
Still nowhere near the same scale, and you know it.
Ish... We still use like USB drives, SD and MicroSD cards. Imaging fumbling for something the size of your thumbnail on a rubble-strewn deck with the lights out. Something rugged and easily identifiable, outweighs any size issue. As darthmeow showed rather nicely woth those cockpit shots: Function dictates form in commercial and millitary applications
Fumbling around for something in the dark is a rather silly example for "needing" floppy disks. Also, in the cockpit examples above, why were all those manual gauges, switches and dials replaced by touchscreens? Because the technology progressed.
If you dismiss a valid example as 'silly', then you are, as darthmeow said, being ignorant, veering into idiocy. With regards your second point, darthmeow also already addressed the point rather succinctly, so no need for me to re-hash what has already been said
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Eh, no point now, Val. Wait until the show's been on a couple of years, and all these naysayers are publicly boasting about how they knew this was going to be a hit from day one, like what happened with TNG.
Still nowhere near the same scale, and you know it.
Sure it is. Anyone anywhere in the world with the funds and an internet connection could have contributed to Axanar's kickstarter. It wasn't limited only to those who could/would want to go to a movie theater.
Could. Doesn't take into account those would could but would not. Again, trying to compare the funds raised to fund what was an independent film, to the box office takings of a Hollywood blockbuster, is disingenuous sophistry. It's like saying an apple and an orange taste the same, because they're both fruit
If you dismiss a valid example as 'silly', then you are, as darthmeow said, being ignorant, veering into idiocy. With regards your second point, darthmeow also already addressed the point rather succinctly, so no need for me to re-hash what has already been said
Sorry but saying that floppy disks are "needed" and "futuristic" because you might need to find one on the floor if the lights go out is silly.
As for the 747, the design changed because the technology improved, otherwise the planes would have kept all the original controls.
Why do you think it's silly?
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Eh, no point now, Val. Wait until the show's been on a couple of years, and all these naysayers are publicly boasting about how they knew this was going to be a hit from day one, like what happened with TNG.
I can promise you this: I don't care if Discovery makes a good run, I would never deny my current opinion, that I think the producers have not only set themselves up to fail, but would liken their 'shooting themselves in the foot-ness' on the scale of: Walking toward a busy, jostling crowd, with a pistol loaded, cocked, pointed at their foot, with their finger on the trigger.
I've said before, and I'll say it again, I hope the series is cancelled before it airs, and this can all be dismissed like waking up in the shower and realising JR isn't dead afterall. If it does make it to air, I likely won't bother watching it.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
... The comparison you're making though, isn't quite the same. A contemporary sci-fi writer certainly writes with the technology of their day, and so a modern writer will indeed portray 2020 in a different way to the way a writer in the 60s would portray 2020. The difference being though, that Star Trek's view of the 2250s has been shown, and these folks are making the claim to be writing in the era of Garth and Pike. They should be having it look like Axanar, not what they've done (unless they want to go down the Kelvin Timeline route, or, just come clean and say it's a remake/reboot, such as the Baywatch movie)
TOS showed us how they used floppy discs and flip phones, which at that time in the 1960's were considered "futuristic". These are both considered antiquated technology today. To have Discovery follow the dated designs from the 60's would just make it look campy and dated.
The latest Star Wars STILL looks "DISCO!", yet THAT seems ok. o.o
Which has more practicality for the user? The Communicator, absolutely. It works at interplanetary range with no supporting infrastructure, whereas that smartphone you're so enamored of wouldn't work 99% of the places you'd try to use it.
Can you download any number of apps onto it? Can the communicator play music or video? Can it do Excel worksheets or databases? Or access the internet?
Seems to me the smartphone already has a lot more functionality than the fictional communicator. Why would such a practical and handy device get dumbed down in the future instead of improved upon?
According to thr TNG Technical manual, a properly configured PADD could be used to fly the ship. The consoles were specifically described as not only having user-customizable interfaces, but with updating software which could still emulste an older formst until an officer was rated for the new software. I think it's a reasonable bet that a PADD could indeed 'access the internet', and a communicator could certsinly be used as a relay-point for music to be streamed from an external source, such as a ship's computer. I don't think they had any onboard storage capacity as such though.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Its a fantasy thing though, it works by magic its a prop in a show.
The reason it didnt have an LED video screen on it is because they hadn't been invented yet for the prop department to use. Thats the reason.
And that is the summation of the argument. Aesthetically there will be those who like and dislike the choices made by the Discovery crew. Neither side is wrong, it's just a choice between possibilities.
While handheld communicators with planetary range were unknown in 1964, it was obvious that everything was getting smaller and more powerful at the same time. Inventing flip phones was not the developers of TOS' intent, no more than inventing teleportation, (which had been a sci-fi/fantasy staple for generations already.) They were props used to advance the plot. (Imagine how many shuttle-landing sequences would have had to be made without transporters!)
The same goes for costumes and stage dressing. They are just props, not ever intended to recreate an historical future age, but to give actors a backdrop as they emote fear, ambition, lust, love, angst, and/or disgust. The fact that one show uses one style while another uses a different style for the same period is not relevant to anyone under age 30 who never viewed TOS when it was the only Trek anywhere. I never cexpected them to be the same because the look of Trek has always evolved, often within a single season of the same show. (Man-skorts, anyone?)
The real question here is how invasive/ pervasive the new franchise will be on the STO MMO?
Because it is a potential advertiser for the Discovery brand, I do anticipate Discovery tie ins, but I don't predict doom and gloom. Well, not doom anyway. Gloom seems to have been fashionable for the last two decades in TV.
I expect ships, uniforms, BOffs, aliens, and the occasional prop to migrate into STO from Discovery, which already handles TOS, TNG-Voy, Ent, and JJ Trek without much trouble.
The latest Star Wars STILL looks "DISCO!", yet THAT seems ok.
Isn't Star Wars taking place "a long time ago"?
Don't matter. If Lucas/Disney gave Star Wars a big change like Discovery is doing with TOS, you'd be seeing the fans screaming bloody murder.....but they did not change it.
And I seen amazing modern TOS art and renders and so on. Hell, I seen a guy take images of the actual Smithsonian model and place it into the films, including JJ's, and they looked awesome.
If one can make Star Wars still look pretty much like how it did from the first one, Trek CAN be done as well. It just takes some hard work, some thinking (~GASPS~ I can hear them go "THINKING?!!!!??!?!!?!?!) and all that.
The latest Star Wars STILL looks "DISCO!", yet THAT seems ok.
Isn't Star Wars taking place "a long time ago"?
And "...in a galaxy far, far away." It'd be weird if it did look like more-advanced Earth tech.
Star Trek, on the other tentacle, takes place in Da Future (in fact, TOS was an unspecified point in the future, centuries at least - the 23rd wasn't nailed down for a while). If Da Future looks all Zeerusty, it needs an explanation like the Fallout games provide (an alternate history in which the transistor, and thus the LSIC board, was never developed), or it's going to start to creak under its own weight. The Enterprise in TOS looked a lot more advanced than our 1966 living room, what with the massed buttons controlling all these kewl functions and the giant screen in front and everything.
A 2017 living room may feasibly feature a giant screen even bigger than the Enterprise viewscreen, and all those buttons now look quaintly old-fashioned rather than "futuristic". The old aesthetic just won't cut it for a modern audience.
As for the 747 cockpit, recall that it was originally designed in 1969, and that while later versions have included avionics upgrades, one of the selling points has been the familiarity of the controls to long-time pilots (so an airliner captain with fifteen years' experience doesn't have to go all the way back to the old two-year training program just because the avionics are better). A better comparison might be to the cockpit of the more recently designed 787 Dreamliner. Still has some switches, because pilots are still pilots, but you'll notice the great huge banks of switches in a 747 have been replaced with touchscreen displays.
By way of comparison, here is a mockup of the control panel for the manned version of the Dragon space capsule. You may notice an entire lack of physical switches of any description.
WELL.... firstly, I am just reveling in my first viral thread here. Although my buddy badmoon pointed out this discussion has taken a turn away from my original post, it has actually picked up my EXACT sentiments perfectly.
I have read (carefully) all of your messages. I want to congratulate and lend my support to @silverlobes#2676 and @darthmeow504 for their polite, and consistent arguments. They are ENTIRELY correct about everything... and I'll prove it to you.
I can't give you names as I would never get my friends in trouble but I have several inside connections to Discovery (and as a funny side, I am acquaintances with Brandon Routh! #supermanreturns!)
A large part of why the fan base is in disarray over ST:D, as it was over JJ Trek, is due to a deep seeded dishonesty which has caused a cognitive dissonance within Star Trek Franchise (which should be called FAN-CHISE)- well okay that's not a word, but Star Trek lives BECAUSE of us fans... NEVER forget that for a second... Cryptic hasn't, and that's why they have done a fine job with STO... A DAMNED fine job indeed...
Firstly; my Betazoid senses are already telling me something obvious- some of you are immediately skeptical of my claim to have inside sources on Discovery. I don't expect you to believe what I'm about to tell you here, but within 3 to 5 years everything I say will be public knowledge.
I am going to break down the elements of dishonesty within CBS that has lead to Star Trek going of the rails so drastically, as well as the attempt of the few remaining true Trek Creators to save it, but to no avail...
1: JJ Abrams was a Star Wars Fan Boy always. When he was approached to do Star Trek he blatantly changed Star Trek to his personal preference by introducing deep rooted Star Wars Elements in to it. The excuse he used was: "Trek needs an updated look." This was akin to him unzipping his jeans and urinating on the crowd of fans. When JJ went to do Star Wars did he change the look of the out dates 1970's Millennium Falcon? Did he make storm troopers sexier? Did he polish out the scuff marks on X-wings? Did he even switch all of the animatronics and puppets over to CGI? - NO. HE TREATED HIS FRANCHISE, STAR WARS LIKE A SACRED COW AND DARED NOT CHANGE A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT!!!!!
Now wait just a damned minute... you're going to point out the updated graphics and effects Abrams used in Star Wars- FAIR. It's mine along with all of the other Trek Fans (including Doug Drexler's) opinion that there is a WAY to honor the look of Original Trek but use some updated materials, some slight stylizing and lighting as well as effects to modernize it. JUST like Abrams PROVED by keeping Chewie's fur matted and the Falcon scuffed! BB8 is a totally more advanced robot than R2 D2 yet it follows some basic principles of the Star Wars era that makes it believable. And they didn't scrap R2 to bring in BB8!!!
Star Trek Fans aren't saying we don't want to see new things, just don't destroy basic design aesthetics that are principle to the era they are setting the show in. ( And to whom said this isn't a period piece because it's just fiction, and keeps arguing that since it's fiction NOTHING MATTERS, you're incorrect. When you call something Star Trek and say it takes place during the lifetimes of the original series crew, Kirk, Spock EVERYONE IS OUT THERE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME DISCOVERY IS FLYING THROUGH SPACE) then you have an obligation to respect the fans and franchise by adhering to design rules of the era... I'll get back to those rules a bit later (I think you'll like my points Darthmeow)
2: Bryan Fuller was FIRED. He did not "step down." He is under a legal contract to lie and say he stepped down because he was "busy". Why was he fired? Because Les Moonves himself tried to tell the creators of the show how to stylize it. Moonves who insiders report "can't tell the difference between Star Trek or Star Wars" is neither a sci-fi fan nor is he a creative person!!!!!!
He started to get in to an arm wrestle with Bryan Fuller over making Star Trek Discovery look like Star Wars and the new JJ movies. Fuller tried desperately to explain to Moonves that fans were NOT going to tolerate bulldozing and re-paving THEIR franchise with some sexed up, re-envisioned TRIBBLE just because you're comparing 1980's and 1990's television ratings to the 2009 onward ratings of big cinema films. As many "new fans" of trek as the JJ movies brought in, none of those fans understand what Trek is about because those movies didn't have any story, no moral point, no social commentary. I have met a LOT of kids who are only fans of the JJ Trek and never watched any other trek and I have talked to them and none of them like trek nor do they know what it stands for. It was just an action flick for them. Real trek is about story, but it's also a cultural phenomenon. It's the only human story we have on television that A- has lasted this long and B- has a philosophy that shows humans a better way to live than is expressed anywhere on Earth or in any contemporary dystopic sci-fi There is a certain moral obligation the owners of Trek have to keep it's core values and vision alive ESPECIALLY NOW MORE THAN EVER- and Fuller was fired when he tried to fight for that...
3: The look of the show was ultimately chosen by Moonves and has no semblance to star trek. If you took the Delta shield badge off the uniform this show would be a "generic sci fi." The argument that for Star Trek to draw in new fans it must have a totally new look is flawed and incorrect... The point made earlier about MAD MEN taking place in the 1960's was POINTE FINALE. You don't have to have sexy new cars or sexy modern phones or sexy modern clothing and hair and makeup in order to draw in new fans. In fact this is a point I want to make: Look at the new Battlestar Galactica. Their ships look dark, gloomy, they have old 1970's style telephones with cords attached, and clunky awkward computers with radar screens and push buttons and keyboards and head sets!!!!!! This look is AWFUL. But the story and characters made the show amazing. And you know who was a front runner for the show?.... take a guess.. hint: Worked as writer for nearly every star trek series including the major movies not the least of which was first contact: Ronald D Moore. Take a look at the 1960's World Fare which is where the principle designer for Original Trek Matt Jeffereys (the namesake for the Jeffreys tube) got his inspiration for the over all aesthetic.
The 1960's world fair was a vision of the future by major tech and car companies of that era. It was a BEAUTIFUL event that hundreds of thousands if not millions came to see. The retro-futurism art style can STILL apply to modern design and in fact often does. I have a completely modern dining room table with a mushroom base that looks like something out of the Jetsons or Star Trek TOS. I have bar stools which look like they belong on the Enterprise. There's a way that Trek Designers (if allowed by Les Moonves) could do a tongue and cheek nod to that retro-futurism aesthetic but using modern technology and materials and lighting- it would look AMAZING. And as long as story and characters aren't compromised, the "new" trek would bring in EVEN MORE fans than ever before- even though it follows the rules of the 2250's designs. Imagine those beautiful multi colored glowing jewel buttons that are touch sensitive. They actually could sink in to the panel and become a touch screen. There's a company developing a tactile touch screen right now- which essentially uses a gel under the surface of the touch screen which reacts to electricity and causes physical buttons to form. That's a way to take those gorgeous 2250's glowing jewels and make them make sense. Even Tuvok in Year of Hell set his console to "tactile interface." We never saw the effect for this but it is implied. And in a single scene of The Cage pilot Spock is using motions with his hand and a monitor is responding to HAND GESTURES IN THIN AIR- that's some minority report sh*t right there, and that was in the cage pilot and never seen again. So don't give me this nonsense that the 2250's were not advanced and with a LITTLE creativity and a tongue and cheek approach, GOOD artists cant take that technology and make it re-envigorated and damned well inspirational to us today!!!
ALSO: What did Tom Paris say to Tuvok when Tuvok criticized Tom's "buttons dials and TRIBBLE" in the Delta Flyer Cockpit? - Tom said "I AM SICK OF TAPPING PANELS! For once I want to FEEL the controls of my ship! It makes me feel more connected."
So it's conceivable that while we all think touch screens are super advanced and superior today- in the future maybe the novelty of a tactile interface will return simply due to the lack thereof. And my explanation of how a glowy jewel button can sink down and turn in to a touch screen is the epitome of a new vision on an old interpretation. That's what Trek needs and is about in part! Vision!!!
So my fellow fans.. your arguing with each other all stems from your attempts to justify why Les Moonves and JJ Abrams have destroyed Star Trek. The willful neglect and destruction of OUR property (which we keep alive and WE financially support) has been perpetrated by greedy suits. Star Trek is in crisis. You may not see that right now- but you'll understand what I mean in a few years time.
One last point Star Wars creator Lucas is alive and well. He has a lot of say in his original creation and every year Lucas holds a symposium for fan films and even gives awards. Whereas Gene Rodenberry is dead, and his son and all those who love trek and understand trek such as the Okuda's and Nimoy's son and the creatives at DS9 all literally have to grovel and pay CBS to make films that frankly end up GETTING CBS MONEY AND AS FOR FAN FILMS AWARDS? CBS SUES IT'S F*&( FANS!!!!!
Few Aesthetic points:
- Ships in the 2250's had a bomber/submarine aesthetic mixed with a retro-futurism seen at the worlds fair. Thomas at Cryptic created never before seen, totally original 2250's ship designs following those aesthetic markers. He did an AMAZING job and any one of those ships would be absolutely television worthy- I'd even say feature film worthy. Imagine the old nacelles with antennae on them up close as the ship pans through a nebula and space lightning discharges against the antennae. Cut to the bridge and Engineering calls up about particle absorption - as they are using busard collectors to collect something from the nebula. Those huge dramatic old series nacelles would look AMAZING on camera in these kinds of situations, where as future trek everything is understated and subtle and streamlined in to the flesh of the hull so you just can't get that kind of drama.
- There is nothing wrong with using primary colors and sweater like uniforms as part of Starfleet Design. Given that Starfleet is an agency which travels the stars they probably would keep the way they represent themselves very basic and bright as to not give off the impression of intimidation. Also: Starfleet doesn't need Holograms because frankly a simple view screen or a ipad style screen is effective enough. As for the tiny CRT screen in the tricorders- who is to say that the reason that tricorder screen was convex wasn't because it was a 3D screen? Modern 3D televisions are curved!!! While I realize in the 1960's the tech was not imagined this way, this is what I mean when I refer to using tongue and cheek approach to design. Just have a sense of humor and find a new way to tie together the old tech, Doug Drexler points out how the TOS Enterprise looking white and smooth with very little external visible technology is a LOT like an apple product. As the new Iphone comes out we see smooth, white and silver and just one simple button to turn it on! Looking at the old Enterprise through this lens we can almost see how it's almost MORE futuristic than even next generation ships. The only fans who don't think it's futuristic are biased because they just never learned to appreciate retro-futurism.
- Imagine if Discovery was like Thomas' design for the Ranger class or something along those lines- we see it in dry dock being constructed and each hull panel is 3D printed from a crystal polymer carbon composite- and when attached the hull plates merge together- this is a way to take that 2250's look and explain it visually and technically to show fans how insanely futuristic it is!
Same with Cage era Laser Pistols. Maybe starfleet had a early Phaser but they called it a Laser- where it still fired particle beams but it was before the more advanced phaser came in to play. Another way to explain away the past but re-imagine it to be more advanced than it had been lead on to be in it's day. Those cage era laser pistols really do look cool! From what I saw of Discovery's phasers they are actually getting them right. I just HOPE they don't fire a pulse, as that's visually boring and inconsistent.
- One last point: The Cage era sweater like uniforms and the tos space suits are perfectly fine. I just recently saw a company that grows a nano-tube fabric which is as hard as steel. The fabric looks and feels EXACTLY LIKE THE TOS SPACE SUITS. yet it's more tough than any fabric anywhere- bullets can't penetrate it. So tell me why a futuristic space suit wont simply be a tin foil like nano-fiber onesie? It certainly would allow for free movement. And the sweater uniforms with excursion jackets looked practical and smart and showed that Starfleet at this time was not about war or destruction. Same with every other starfleet Uniform in TNG, to DS9 and Voyager, all of them have a "comfy pyjama" look to them even if they weren't technically comfy by actor standards- the idea is Starfleet wants to project an air of benevolence. They only fight out of self defense of defense of others.
Those uniforms looked great on Axanar and I still watch the Cage pilot and find the uniforms to be attractive and intelligent.
The Battlestar Galactica uniform is just a standard military naval costume. Nobody cares. The Dr. Who clothes are glorified london wear- nobody cares. Star Trek Discovery design is absolutely horrible and the crew looks like a marching band. And people DO care you know why?- because they are trying TOO HARD. Starfleet doesn't wear Uniforms that are ridiculous and impractical. They wear primary colors that look simple and comfortable. If anything starfleet tries to dress more spiritual than military with their softer tunic look. Discovery has created a strange take on what was supposed to be a simple yet functional Uniform.
I myself will still watch and appreciate Discovery, but I will still speak up about trying to keep Star Trek alive and true to what it's original vision and intention was.
The only actually decent looking star trek uniforms were the wrath of khan ones the others are all goofy.
I happen to agree with you fully repetitiveepic. And the Discovery design being that Ralph McQuarry that never made it to the Motion picture made me think that Discovery would take place after Undiscovered Country.
I mean how perfect/logical is that? you go from "UNDISCOVERED country" to "DISCOVERY'- it only made sense.
The ship and tech as we see it would actually kind of make sense if it were in that mysterious period between the Undiscovered Country and young Picard. All the living original cast could have made cameo's as their admiral selves and retired selves. Enterprise B with Feris Beuller (too lazy to correct spelling) as captain could have been out there!
When Discovery mistakenly decided to go 10 years prior to Kirk, I did a Picard facepalm. We should have been seeing the monster maroon on tv with Discovery. but again, we fans have much better ideas than the current "legal owner" of Star Trek.
I have been thinking about starting a crowd fund to get fans together to deal with taking Star Trek over from CBS so that we can own it. It'd be called The Federation Council and would consist of Gene Rodenberry's son and family, and Leonard Nimoy's son and family and all number of executives who run big companies and adore trek- and we would hire a real team to make Trek the way it's meant to be made. And Netflix would strike a deal with us and Trek would move on to the newest most progressive platform in Media: Netflix and it would come alive again.
But before I start taking action to make this happen, I'm waiting to see what happens with Discovery... none the less there are plans in the works to save Star Trek and return it to it's rightful owners.
WELL.... firstly, I am just reveling in my first viral thread here. Although my buddy badmoon pointed out this discussion has taken a turn away from my original post, it has actually picked up my EXACT sentiments perfectly.
I have read (carefully) all of your messages. I want to congratulate and lend my support to @silverlobes#2676 and @darthmeow504 for their polite, and consistent arguments. They are ENTIRELY correct about everything... and I'll prove it to you.
I can't give you names as I would never get my friends in trouble but I have several inside connections to Discovery (and as a funny side, I am acquaintances with Brandon Routh! #supermanreturns!)
A large part of why the fan base is in disarray over ST:D, as it was over JJ Trek, is due to a deep seeded dishonesty which has caused a cognitive dissonance within Star Trek Franchise (which should be called FAN-CHISE)- well okay that's not a word, but Star Trek lives BECAUSE of us fans... NEVER forget that for a second... Cryptic hasn't, and that's why they have done a fine job with STO... A DAMNED fine job indeed...
Firstly; my Betazoid senses are already telling me something obvious- some of you are immediately skeptical of my claim to have inside sources on Discovery. I don't expect you to believe what I'm about to tell you here, but within 3 to 5 years everything I say will be public knowledge.
I am going to break down the elements of dishonesty within CBS that has lead to Star Trek going of the rails so drastically, as well as the attempt of the few remaining true Trek Creators to save it, but to no avail...
1: JJ Abrams was a Star Wars Fan Boy always. When he was approached to do Star Trek he blatantly changed Star Trek to his personal preference by introducing deep rooted Star Wars Elements in to it. The excuse he used was: "Trek needs an updated look." This was akin to him unzipping his jeans and urinating on the crowd of fans. When JJ went to do Star Wars did he change the look of the out dates 1970's Millennium Falcon? Did he make storm troopers sexier? Did he polish out the scuff marks on X-wings? Did he even switch all of the animatronics and puppets over to CGI? - NO. HE TREATED HIS FRANCHISE, STAR WARS LIKE A SACRED COW AND DARED NOT CHANGE A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT!!!!!
Now wait just a damned minute... you're going to point out the updated graphics and effects Abrams used in Star Wars- FAIR. It's mine along with all of the other Trek Fans (including Doug Drexler's) opinion that there is a WAY to honor the look of Original Trek but use some updated materials, some slight stylizing and lighting as well as effects to modernize it. JUST like Abrams PROVED by keeping Chewie's fur matted and the Falcon scuffed! BB8 is a totally more advanced robot than R2 D2 yet it follows some basic principles of the Star Wars era that makes it believable. And they didn't scrap R2 to bring in BB8!!!
Star Trek Fans aren't saying we don't want to see new things, just don't destroy basic design aesthetics that are principle to the era they are setting the show in. ( And to whom said this isn't a period piece because it's just fiction, and keeps arguing that since it's fiction NOTHING MATTERS, you're incorrect. When you call something Star Trek and say it takes place during the lifetimes of the original series crew, Kirk, Spock EVERYONE IS OUT THERE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME DISCOVERY IS FLYING THROUGH SPACE) then you have an obligation to respect the fans and franchise by adhering to design rules of the era... I'll get back to those rules a bit later (I think you'll like my points Darthmeow)
2: Bryan Fuller was FIRED. He did not "step down." He is under a legal contract to lie and say he stepped down because he was "busy". Why was he fired? Because Les Moonves himself tried to tell the creators of the show how to stylize it. Moonves who insiders report "can't tell the difference between Star Trek or Star Wars" is neither a sci-fi fan nor is he a creative person!!!!!!
He started to get in to an arm wrestle with Bryan Fuller over making Star Trek Discovery look like Star Wars and the new JJ movies. Fuller tried desperately to explain to Moonves that fans were NOT going to tolerate bulldozing and re-paving THEIR franchise with some sexed up, re-envisioned **** just because you're comparing 1980's and 1990's television ratings to the 2009 onward ratings of big cinema films. As many "new fans" of trek as the JJ movies brought in, none of those fans understand what Trek is about because those movies didn't have any story, no moral point, no social commentary. I have met a LOT of kids who are only fans of the JJ Trek and never watched any other trek and I have talked to them and none of them like trek nor do they know what it stands for. It was just an action flick for them. Real trek is about story, but it's also a cultural phenomenon. It's the only human story we have on television that A- has lasted this long and B- has a philosophy that shows humans a better way to live than is expressed anywhere on Earth or in any contemporary dystopic sci-fi There is a certain moral obligation the owners of Trek have to keep it's core values and vision alive ESPECIALLY NOW MORE THAN EVER- and Fuller was fired when he tried to fight for that...
3: The look of the show was ultimately chosen by Moonves and has no semblance to star trek. If you took the Delta shield badge off the uniform this show would be a "generic sci fi." The argument that for Star Trek to draw in new fans it must have a totally new look is flawed and incorrect... The point made earlier about MAD MEN taking place in the 1960's was POINTE FINALE. You don't have to have sexy new cars or sexy modern phones or sexy modern clothing and hair and makeup in order to draw in new fans. In fact this is a point I want to make: Look at the new Battlestar Galactica. Their ships look dark, gloomy, they have old 1970's style telephones with cords attached, and clunky awkward computers with radar screens and push buttons and keyboards and head sets!!!!!! This look is AWFUL. But the story and characters made the show amazing. And you know who was a front runner for the show?.... take a guess.. hint: Worked as writer for nearly every star trek series including the major movies not the least of which was first contact: Ronald D Moore. Take a look at the 1960's World Fare which is where the principle designer for Original Trek Matt Jeffereys (the namesake for the Jeffreys tube) got his inspiration for the over all aesthetic.
The 1960's world fair was a vision of the future by major tech and car companies of that era. It was a BEAUTIFUL event that hundreds of thousands if not millions came to see. The retro-futurism art style can STILL apply to modern design and in fact often does. I have a completely modern dining room table with a mushroom base that looks like something out of the Jetsons or Star Trek TOS. I have bar stools which look like they belong on the Enterprise. There's a way that Trek Designers (if allowed by Les Moonves) could do a tongue and cheek nod to that retro-futurism aesthetic but using modern technology and materials and lighting- it would look AMAZING. And as long as story and characters aren't compromised, the "new" trek would bring in EVEN MORE fans than ever before- even though it follows the rules of the 2250's designs. Imagine those beautiful multi colored glowing jewel buttons that are touch sensitive. They actually could sink in to the panel and become a touch screen. There's a company developing a tactile touch screen right now- which essentially uses a gel under the surface of the touch screen which reacts to electricity and causes physical buttons to form. That's a way to take those gorgeous 2250's glowing jewels and make them make sense. Even Tuvok in Year of Hell set his console to "tactile interface." We never saw the effect for this but it is implied. And in a single scene of The Cage pilot Spock is using motions with his hand and a monitor is responding to HAND GESTURES IN THIN AIR- that's some minority report sh*t right there, and that was in the cage pilot and never seen again. So don't give me this nonsense that the 2250's were not advanced and with a LITTLE creativity and a tongue and cheek approach, GOOD artists cant take that technology and make it re-envigorated and damned well inspirational to us today!!!
ALSO: What did Tom Paris say to Tuvok when Tuvok criticized Tom's "buttons dials and ****" in the Delta Flyer Cockpit? - Tom said "I AM SICK OF TAPPING PANELS! For once I want to FEEL the controls of my ship! It makes me feel more connected."
So it's conceivable that while we all think touch screens are super advanced and superior today- in the future maybe the novelty of a tactile interface will return simply due to the lack thereof. And my explanation of how a glowy jewel button can sink down and turn in to a touch screen is the epitome of a new vision on an old interpretation. That's what Trek needs and is about in part! Vision!!!
So my fellow fans.. your arguing with each other all stems from your attempts to justify why Les Moonves and JJ Abrams have destroyed Star Trek. The willful neglect and destruction of OUR property (which we keep alive and WE financially support) has been perpetrated by greedy suits. Star Trek is in crisis. You may not see that right now- but you'll understand what I mean in a few years time.
One last point Star Wars creator Lucas is alive and well. He has a lot of say in his original creation and every year Lucas holds a symposium for fan films and even gives awards. Whereas Gene Rodenberry is dead, and his son and all those who love trek and understand trek such as the Okuda's and Nimoy's son and the creatives at DS9 all literally have to grovel and pay CBS to make films that frankly end up GETTING CBS MONEY AND AS FOR FAN FILMS AWARDS? CBS SUES IT'S F*&( FANS!!!!!
Few Aesthetic points:
- Ships in the 2250's had a bomber/submarine aesthetic mixed with a retro-futurism seen at the worlds fair. Thomas at Cryptic created never before seen, totally original 2250's ship designs following those aesthetic markers. He did an AMAZING job and any one of those ships would be absolutely television worthy- I'd even say feature film worthy. Imagine the old nacelles with antennae on them up close as the ship pans through a nebula and space lightning discharges against the antennae. Cut to the bridge and Engineering calls up about particle absorption - as they are using busard collectors to collect something from the nebula. Those huge dramatic old series nacelles would look AMAZING on camera in these kinds of situations, where as future trek everything is understated and subtle and streamlined in to the flesh of the hull so you just can't get that kind of drama.
- There is nothing wrong with using primary colors and sweater like uniforms as part of Starfleet Design. Given that Starfleet is an agency which travels the stars they probably would keep the way they represent themselves very basic and bright as to not give off the impression of intimidation. Also: Starfleet doesn't need Holograms because frankly a simple view screen or a ipad style screen is effective enough. As for the tiny CRT screen in the tricorders- who is to say that the reason that tricorder screen was convex wasn't because it was a 3D screen? Modern 3D televisions are curved!!! While I realize in the 1960's the tech was not imagined this way, this is what I mean when I refer to using tongue and cheek approach to design. Just have a sense of humor and find a new way to tie together the old tech, Doug Drexler points out how the TOS Enterprise looking white and smooth with very little external visible technology is a LOT like an apple product. As the new Iphone comes out we see smooth, white and silver and just one simple button to turn it on! Looking at the old Enterprise through this lens we can almost see how it's almost MORE futuristic than even next generation ships. The only fans who don't think it's futuristic are biased because they just never learned to appreciate retro-futurism.
- Imagine if Discovery was like Thomas' design for the Ranger class or something along those lines- we see it in dry dock being constructed and each hull panel is 3D printed from a crystal polymer carbon composite- and when attached the hull plates merge together- this is a way to take that 2250's look and explain it visually and technically to show fans how insanely futuristic it is!
Same with Cage era Laser Pistols. Maybe starfleet had a early Phaser but they called it a Laser- where it still fired particle beams but it was before the more advanced phaser came in to play. Another way to explain away the past but re-imagine it to be more advanced than it had been lead on to be in it's day. Those cage era laser pistols really do look cool! From what I saw of Discovery's phasers they are actually getting them right. I just HOPE they don't fire a pulse, as that's visually boring and inconsistent.
- One last point: The Cage era sweater like uniforms and the tos space suits are perfectly fine. I just recently saw a company that grows a nano-tube fabric which is as hard as steel. The fabric looks and feels EXACTLY LIKE THE TOS SPACE SUITS. yet it's more tough than any fabric anywhere- bullets can't penetrate it. So tell me why a futuristic space suit wont simply be a tin foil like nano-fiber onesie? It certainly would allow for free movement. And the sweater uniforms with excursion jackets looked practical and smart and showed that Starfleet at this time was not about war or destruction. Same with every other starfleet Uniform in TNG, to DS9 and Voyager, all of them have a "comfy pyjama" look to them even if they weren't technically comfy by actor standards- the idea is Starfleet wants to project an air of benevolence. They only fight out of self defense of defense of others.
Those uniforms looked great on Axanar and I still watch the Cage pilot and find the uniforms to be attractive and intelligent.
The Battlestar Galactica uniform is just a standard military naval costume. Nobody cares. The Dr. Who clothes are glorified london wear- nobody cares. Star Trek Discovery design is absolutely horrible and the crew looks like a marching band. And people DO care you know why?- because they are trying TOO HARD. Starfleet doesn't wear Uniforms that are ridiculous and impractical. They wear primary colors that look simple and comfortable. If anything starfleet tries to dress more spiritual than military with their softer tunic look. Discovery has created a strange take on what was supposed to be a simple yet functional Uniform.
I myself will still watch and appreciate Discovery, but I will still speak up about trying to keep Star Trek alive and true to what it's original vision and intention was.
STO is the only place keeping Trek Alive.
Thank you And bravo on a stunning post which gets right to the heart lf the matter *applause*
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Comments
> I keep telling myself that Discovery is going to fail so hard and then I'm remind that older Trek fans are not the majority anymore. CBS doesn't care about making money off older trek fans because that not the crowd they are aiming for.
Ironically, they didn't want us back then, either......they cancelled TOS because the audience they got wasn't biddable enough to obey the ads. The Millenials are way more to their liking.
The projects were aimed at different crowds, and thus seek different appearances. It is not bait and switch, though because Discovery from its first announcement was never going to look like Axanar or the TOS pilots. It was always planned as a new phase in the Trek story intended to appeal to modern audiences. Any belief that it was ever supposed to mimic The Cage era visuals is supported only in the imaginations of those who wanted it to look that way.
The one issue I have is with paying as much to see each episode as an equivalent amount of time in a movie theater. Generously assume 50 minute episodes, which makes three episodes costing $18 the same price as a two and a half hour feature film.
And yes, I know I can watch I Love Lucy, but I have an eidetic memory so reruns are for me a waste of time. As a sci-fi nerd I am singularly uninterested in crime dramas, and the more graphic the depictions of the crimes the less they interest me. That leaves soap operas and fake contest shows, neither of which keep me interested for long.
So, while I retain high hopes for Discovery, (its success might ignite a new round of SF television shows which do not feature reanimated corpses, while its failure could insure another generation without Trek on TV,) I am not going to buy it. It's just not worth it for me. You, of course, are welcome to hold other opinions on the subject.
If Discovery doesn't get its own MMO, I assume there will be tie ins, and I am going to speculate further that there will be content locked behind a Discovery paywall, such as a Starship Discovery Subscription Code which gives All Access subscribers the ship sponsored by CBS as a way to encourage subscriptions.
I wonder how many new subscribers CBS would get for a digital ship unlock?
The funny thing there is fans' sense of scale. That amazing "over a million bucks" isn't enough to pay for ONE DAY of shooting on most major productions. It doesn't actually say "massive untapped market" to the big kids at all. Kind of the opposite, really.
But.
It still shows the amount of interest (and the willingness to actually hand over cashmoney) from a fanbase who, around here, would rather grind a dozen plus, rather than spend cashmoney (which is what the game actually Needs to keep going
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
If you dismiss a valid example as 'silly', then you are, as darthmeow said, being ignorant, veering into idiocy. With regards your second point, darthmeow also already addressed the point rather succinctly, so no need for me to re-hash what has already been said
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Why do you think it's silly?
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
I've said before, and I'll say it again, I hope the series is cancelled before it airs, and this can all be dismissed like waking up in the shower and realising JR isn't dead afterall. If it does make it to air, I likely won't bother watching it.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The latest Star Wars STILL looks "DISCO!", yet THAT seems ok. o.o
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
And that is the summation of the argument. Aesthetically there will be those who like and dislike the choices made by the Discovery crew. Neither side is wrong, it's just a choice between possibilities.
While handheld communicators with planetary range were unknown in 1964, it was obvious that everything was getting smaller and more powerful at the same time. Inventing flip phones was not the developers of TOS' intent, no more than inventing teleportation, (which had been a sci-fi/fantasy staple for generations already.) They were props used to advance the plot. (Imagine how many shuttle-landing sequences would have had to be made without transporters!)
The same goes for costumes and stage dressing. They are just props, not ever intended to recreate an historical future age, but to give actors a backdrop as they emote fear, ambition, lust, love, angst, and/or disgust. The fact that one show uses one style while another uses a different style for the same period is not relevant to anyone under age 30 who never viewed TOS when it was the only Trek anywhere. I never cexpected them to be the same because the look of Trek has always evolved, often within a single season of the same show. (Man-skorts, anyone?)
The real question here is how invasive/ pervasive the new franchise will be on the STO MMO?
Because it is a potential advertiser for the Discovery brand, I do anticipate Discovery tie ins, but I don't predict doom and gloom. Well, not doom anyway. Gloom seems to have been fashionable for the last two decades in TV.
I expect ships, uniforms, BOffs, aliens, and the occasional prop to migrate into STO from Discovery, which already handles TOS, TNG-Voy, Ent, and JJ Trek without much trouble.
Don't matter. If Lucas/Disney gave Star Wars a big change like Discovery is doing with TOS, you'd be seeing the fans screaming bloody murder.....but they did not change it.
And I seen amazing modern TOS art and renders and so on. Hell, I seen a guy take images of the actual Smithsonian model and place it into the films, including JJ's, and they looked awesome.
If one can make Star Wars still look pretty much like how it did from the first one, Trek CAN be done as well. It just takes some hard work, some thinking (~GASPS~ I can hear them go "THINKING?!!!!??!?!!?!?!) and all that.
Star Trek, on the other tentacle, takes place in Da Future (in fact, TOS was an unspecified point in the future, centuries at least - the 23rd wasn't nailed down for a while). If Da Future looks all Zeerusty, it needs an explanation like the Fallout games provide (an alternate history in which the transistor, and thus the LSIC board, was never developed), or it's going to start to creak under its own weight. The Enterprise in TOS looked a lot more advanced than our 1966 living room, what with the massed buttons controlling all these kewl functions and the giant screen in front and everything.
A 2017 living room may feasibly feature a giant screen even bigger than the Enterprise viewscreen, and all those buttons now look quaintly old-fashioned rather than "futuristic". The old aesthetic just won't cut it for a modern audience.
As for the 747 cockpit, recall that it was originally designed in 1969, and that while later versions have included avionics upgrades, one of the selling points has been the familiarity of the controls to long-time pilots (so an airliner captain with fifteen years' experience doesn't have to go all the way back to the old two-year training program just because the avionics are better). A better comparison might be to the cockpit of the more recently designed 787 Dreamliner. Still has some switches, because pilots are still pilots, but you'll notice the great huge banks of switches in a 747 have been replaced with touchscreen displays.
By way of comparison, here is a mockup of the control panel for the manned version of the Dragon space capsule. You may notice an entire lack of physical switches of any description.
I have read (carefully) all of your messages. I want to congratulate and lend my support to @silverlobes#2676 and @darthmeow504 for their polite, and consistent arguments. They are ENTIRELY correct about everything... and I'll prove it to you.
I can't give you names as I would never get my friends in trouble but I have several inside connections to Discovery (and as a funny side, I am acquaintances with Brandon Routh! #supermanreturns!)
A large part of why the fan base is in disarray over ST:D, as it was over JJ Trek, is due to a deep seeded dishonesty which has caused a cognitive dissonance within Star Trek Franchise (which should be called FAN-CHISE)- well okay that's not a word, but Star Trek lives BECAUSE of us fans... NEVER forget that for a second... Cryptic hasn't, and that's why they have done a fine job with STO... A DAMNED fine job indeed...
Firstly; my Betazoid senses are already telling me something obvious- some of you are immediately skeptical of my claim to have inside sources on Discovery. I don't expect you to believe what I'm about to tell you here, but within 3 to 5 years everything I say will be public knowledge.
I am going to break down the elements of dishonesty within CBS that has lead to Star Trek going of the rails so drastically, as well as the attempt of the few remaining true Trek Creators to save it, but to no avail...
1: JJ Abrams was a Star Wars Fan Boy always. When he was approached to do Star Trek he blatantly changed Star Trek to his personal preference by introducing deep rooted Star Wars Elements in to it. The excuse he used was: "Trek needs an updated look." This was akin to him unzipping his jeans and urinating on the crowd of fans. When JJ went to do Star Wars did he change the look of the out dates 1970's Millennium Falcon? Did he make storm troopers sexier? Did he polish out the scuff marks on X-wings? Did he even switch all of the animatronics and puppets over to CGI? - NO. HE TREATED HIS FRANCHISE, STAR WARS LIKE A SACRED COW AND DARED NOT CHANGE A SINGLE THING ABOUT IT!!!!!
Now wait just a damned minute... you're going to point out the updated graphics and effects Abrams used in Star Wars- FAIR. It's mine along with all of the other Trek Fans (including Doug Drexler's) opinion that there is a WAY to honor the look of Original Trek but use some updated materials, some slight stylizing and lighting as well as effects to modernize it. JUST like Abrams PROVED by keeping Chewie's fur matted and the Falcon scuffed! BB8 is a totally more advanced robot than R2 D2 yet it follows some basic principles of the Star Wars era that makes it believable. And they didn't scrap R2 to bring in BB8!!!
Star Trek Fans aren't saying we don't want to see new things, just don't destroy basic design aesthetics that are principle to the era they are setting the show in. ( And to whom said this isn't a period piece because it's just fiction, and keeps arguing that since it's fiction NOTHING MATTERS, you're incorrect. When you call something Star Trek and say it takes place during the lifetimes of the original series crew, Kirk, Spock EVERYONE IS OUT THERE AT THE EXACT SAME TIME DISCOVERY IS FLYING THROUGH SPACE) then you have an obligation to respect the fans and franchise by adhering to design rules of the era... I'll get back to those rules a bit later (I think you'll like my points Darthmeow)
2: Bryan Fuller was FIRED. He did not "step down." He is under a legal contract to lie and say he stepped down because he was "busy". Why was he fired? Because Les Moonves himself tried to tell the creators of the show how to stylize it. Moonves who insiders report "can't tell the difference between Star Trek or Star Wars" is neither a sci-fi fan nor is he a creative person!!!!!!
He started to get in to an arm wrestle with Bryan Fuller over making Star Trek Discovery look like Star Wars and the new JJ movies. Fuller tried desperately to explain to Moonves that fans were NOT going to tolerate bulldozing and re-paving THEIR franchise with some sexed up, re-envisioned TRIBBLE just because you're comparing 1980's and 1990's television ratings to the 2009 onward ratings of big cinema films. As many "new fans" of trek as the JJ movies brought in, none of those fans understand what Trek is about because those movies didn't have any story, no moral point, no social commentary. I have met a LOT of kids who are only fans of the JJ Trek and never watched any other trek and I have talked to them and none of them like trek nor do they know what it stands for. It was just an action flick for them. Real trek is about story, but it's also a cultural phenomenon. It's the only human story we have on television that A- has lasted this long and B- has a philosophy that shows humans a better way to live than is expressed anywhere on Earth or in any contemporary dystopic sci-fi There is a certain moral obligation the owners of Trek have to keep it's core values and vision alive ESPECIALLY NOW MORE THAN EVER- and Fuller was fired when he tried to fight for that...
3: The look of the show was ultimately chosen by Moonves and has no semblance to star trek. If you took the Delta shield badge off the uniform this show would be a "generic sci fi." The argument that for Star Trek to draw in new fans it must have a totally new look is flawed and incorrect... The point made earlier about MAD MEN taking place in the 1960's was POINTE FINALE. You don't have to have sexy new cars or sexy modern phones or sexy modern clothing and hair and makeup in order to draw in new fans. In fact this is a point I want to make: Look at the new Battlestar Galactica. Their ships look dark, gloomy, they have old 1970's style telephones with cords attached, and clunky awkward computers with radar screens and push buttons and keyboards and head sets!!!!!! This look is AWFUL. But the story and characters made the show amazing. And you know who was a front runner for the show?.... take a guess.. hint: Worked as writer for nearly every star trek series including the major movies not the least of which was first contact: Ronald D Moore. Take a look at the 1960's World Fare which is where the principle designer for Original Trek Matt Jeffereys (the namesake for the Jeffreys tube) got his inspiration for the over all aesthetic.
The 1960's world fair was a vision of the future by major tech and car companies of that era. It was a BEAUTIFUL event that hundreds of thousands if not millions came to see. The retro-futurism art style can STILL apply to modern design and in fact often does. I have a completely modern dining room table with a mushroom base that looks like something out of the Jetsons or Star Trek TOS. I have bar stools which look like they belong on the Enterprise. There's a way that Trek Designers (if allowed by Les Moonves) could do a tongue and cheek nod to that retro-futurism aesthetic but using modern technology and materials and lighting- it would look AMAZING. And as long as story and characters aren't compromised, the "new" trek would bring in EVEN MORE fans than ever before- even though it follows the rules of the 2250's designs. Imagine those beautiful multi colored glowing jewel buttons that are touch sensitive. They actually could sink in to the panel and become a touch screen. There's a company developing a tactile touch screen right now- which essentially uses a gel under the surface of the touch screen which reacts to electricity and causes physical buttons to form. That's a way to take those gorgeous 2250's glowing jewels and make them make sense. Even Tuvok in Year of Hell set his console to "tactile interface." We never saw the effect for this but it is implied. And in a single scene of The Cage pilot Spock is using motions with his hand and a monitor is responding to HAND GESTURES IN THIN AIR- that's some minority report sh*t right there, and that was in the cage pilot and never seen again. So don't give me this nonsense that the 2250's were not advanced and with a LITTLE creativity and a tongue and cheek approach, GOOD artists cant take that technology and make it re-envigorated and damned well inspirational to us today!!!
ALSO: What did Tom Paris say to Tuvok when Tuvok criticized Tom's "buttons dials and TRIBBLE" in the Delta Flyer Cockpit? - Tom said "I AM SICK OF TAPPING PANELS! For once I want to FEEL the controls of my ship! It makes me feel more connected."
So it's conceivable that while we all think touch screens are super advanced and superior today- in the future maybe the novelty of a tactile interface will return simply due to the lack thereof. And my explanation of how a glowy jewel button can sink down and turn in to a touch screen is the epitome of a new vision on an old interpretation. That's what Trek needs and is about in part! Vision!!!
So my fellow fans.. your arguing with each other all stems from your attempts to justify why Les Moonves and JJ Abrams have destroyed Star Trek. The willful neglect and destruction of OUR property (which we keep alive and WE financially support) has been perpetrated by greedy suits. Star Trek is in crisis. You may not see that right now- but you'll understand what I mean in a few years time.
One last point Star Wars creator Lucas is alive and well. He has a lot of say in his original creation and every year Lucas holds a symposium for fan films and even gives awards. Whereas Gene Rodenberry is dead, and his son and all those who love trek and understand trek such as the Okuda's and Nimoy's son and the creatives at DS9 all literally have to grovel and pay CBS to make films that frankly end up GETTING CBS MONEY AND AS FOR FAN FILMS AWARDS? CBS SUES IT'S F*&( FANS!!!!!
Few Aesthetic points:
- Ships in the 2250's had a bomber/submarine aesthetic mixed with a retro-futurism seen at the worlds fair. Thomas at Cryptic created never before seen, totally original 2250's ship designs following those aesthetic markers. He did an AMAZING job and any one of those ships would be absolutely television worthy- I'd even say feature film worthy. Imagine the old nacelles with antennae on them up close as the ship pans through a nebula and space lightning discharges against the antennae. Cut to the bridge and Engineering calls up about particle absorption - as they are using busard collectors to collect something from the nebula. Those huge dramatic old series nacelles would look AMAZING on camera in these kinds of situations, where as future trek everything is understated and subtle and streamlined in to the flesh of the hull so you just can't get that kind of drama.
- There is nothing wrong with using primary colors and sweater like uniforms as part of Starfleet Design. Given that Starfleet is an agency which travels the stars they probably would keep the way they represent themselves very basic and bright as to not give off the impression of intimidation. Also: Starfleet doesn't need Holograms because frankly a simple view screen or a ipad style screen is effective enough. As for the tiny CRT screen in the tricorders- who is to say that the reason that tricorder screen was convex wasn't because it was a 3D screen? Modern 3D televisions are curved!!! While I realize in the 1960's the tech was not imagined this way, this is what I mean when I refer to using tongue and cheek approach to design. Just have a sense of humor and find a new way to tie together the old tech, Doug Drexler points out how the TOS Enterprise looking white and smooth with very little external visible technology is a LOT like an apple product. As the new Iphone comes out we see smooth, white and silver and just one simple button to turn it on! Looking at the old Enterprise through this lens we can almost see how it's almost MORE futuristic than even next generation ships. The only fans who don't think it's futuristic are biased because they just never learned to appreciate retro-futurism.
- Imagine if Discovery was like Thomas' design for the Ranger class or something along those lines- we see it in dry dock being constructed and each hull panel is 3D printed from a crystal polymer carbon composite- and when attached the hull plates merge together- this is a way to take that 2250's look and explain it visually and technically to show fans how insanely futuristic it is!
Same with Cage era Laser Pistols. Maybe starfleet had a early Phaser but they called it a Laser- where it still fired particle beams but it was before the more advanced phaser came in to play. Another way to explain away the past but re-imagine it to be more advanced than it had been lead on to be in it's day. Those cage era laser pistols really do look cool! From what I saw of Discovery's phasers they are actually getting them right. I just HOPE they don't fire a pulse, as that's visually boring and inconsistent.
- One last point: The Cage era sweater like uniforms and the tos space suits are perfectly fine. I just recently saw a company that grows a nano-tube fabric which is as hard as steel. The fabric looks and feels EXACTLY LIKE THE TOS SPACE SUITS. yet it's more tough than any fabric anywhere- bullets can't penetrate it. So tell me why a futuristic space suit wont simply be a tin foil like nano-fiber onesie? It certainly would allow for free movement. And the sweater uniforms with excursion jackets looked practical and smart and showed that Starfleet at this time was not about war or destruction. Same with every other starfleet Uniform in TNG, to DS9 and Voyager, all of them have a "comfy pyjama" look to them even if they weren't technically comfy by actor standards- the idea is Starfleet wants to project an air of benevolence. They only fight out of self defense of defense of others.
Those uniforms looked great on Axanar and I still watch the Cage pilot and find the uniforms to be attractive and intelligent.
The Battlestar Galactica uniform is just a standard military naval costume. Nobody cares. The Dr. Who clothes are glorified london wear- nobody cares. Star Trek Discovery design is absolutely horrible and the crew looks like a marching band. And people DO care you know why?- because they are trying TOO HARD. Starfleet doesn't wear Uniforms that are ridiculous and impractical. They wear primary colors that look simple and comfortable. If anything starfleet tries to dress more spiritual than military with their softer tunic look. Discovery has created a strange take on what was supposed to be a simple yet functional Uniform.
I myself will still watch and appreciate Discovery, but I will still speak up about trying to keep Star Trek alive and true to what it's original vision and intention was.
STO is the only place keeping Trek Alive.
I happen to agree with you fully repetitiveepic. And the Discovery design being that Ralph McQuarry that never made it to the Motion picture made me think that Discovery would take place after Undiscovered Country.
I mean how perfect/logical is that? you go from "UNDISCOVERED country" to "DISCOVERY'- it only made sense.
The ship and tech as we see it would actually kind of make sense if it were in that mysterious period between the Undiscovered Country and young Picard. All the living original cast could have made cameo's as their admiral selves and retired selves. Enterprise B with Feris Beuller (too lazy to correct spelling) as captain could have been out there!
When Discovery mistakenly decided to go 10 years prior to Kirk, I did a Picard facepalm. We should have been seeing the monster maroon on tv with Discovery. but again, we fans have much better ideas than the current "legal owner" of Star Trek.
I have been thinking about starting a crowd fund to get fans together to deal with taking Star Trek over from CBS so that we can own it. It'd be called The Federation Council and would consist of Gene Rodenberry's son and family, and Leonard Nimoy's son and family and all number of executives who run big companies and adore trek- and we would hire a real team to make Trek the way it's meant to be made. And Netflix would strike a deal with us and Trek would move on to the newest most progressive platform in Media: Netflix and it would come alive again.
But before I start taking action to make this happen, I'm waiting to see what happens with Discovery... none the less there are plans in the works to save Star Trek and return it to it's rightful owners.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth