STar Trek Discovery

grendel

I just watched the trailer again and I was wondering something. Why didn't CBS try to keep the style of the ships close to what was in TOS. The Discovery looks more advanced looks wise than the Enterprise from TOS. Any thoughts

smokebailey

They think TOS is dated, and think the fans don't care.

Tos always looked advanced, shipwise, and pretty annoyed they pissed overall TOS.

discojer

Because most shows tend to reflect the sensibilities of the time. The problem is them trying to make it a prequel that is in an era with a look defined (the Cage is set like 10 years before the regular TOS and so close to Discovery)

For whatever reason, they've just been resistant to advance the timeline past Voyager's ending. First with Enterprise and now Discovery, even if it's at odds with earlier shows

Unknown

This content has been removed.

captainhunter1

Because its really set in the JJ-verse, despite what they tell you.

shrimphead2015

captainhunter1 wrote: »

Because its really set in the JJ-verse, despite what they tell you.

For me personally I think that's the only way I could watch that show, is to tell myself it's in the JJ-Universe.

warpangel

smokebailey wrote: »

They think TOS is dated, and think the fans don't care.

More precisely, they think fans will watch it no matter what, just because of the name. And they're probably right.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

avoozuul

Why are they so afraid to make a sequel series after Voyager?

darakoss

azrael605 wrote: »

I seriously doubt anyone involved with the production ever considered making their 6+ million dollar an episode show look like a badly dated low budget 1960s tv show.

@baddmoonrizin

Please move to ten forward, thread unrelated to STO.

On the latest vid from NEP on YT they had Larry Nemecek on and they actually discussed this very same issue. They are big Disco supporters and even said its not the set that is dated but rather the cinematography. He cited In a Mirror Darkly and said they did it justice but with a few modern updates and todays cinematography the old sets would look amazing.

captainhunter1

avoozuul wrote: »

Why are they so afraid to make a sequel series after Voyager?

My thoughts exactly. Just doesn't make any sense to keep making 'prequel' material.

artan42

Because the Discovery and Shinzau are not ships from the Cage era, they are ships that are still in service into the Cage era. It's not that difficult. And they look more advanced for the same reason the NX or Kelvin look more advanced than the TOS Conni, because in TV we no longer make things out of cardboard.

captainhunter1 wrote: »

Because its really set in the JJ-verse, despite what they tell you.

No such thing as a JJ-verse, despite what you tell us. It's Prime, grow up.

Why does this need a new thread?​​

thay8472

artan42 wrote: »

Because the Discovery and Shinzau are not ships from the Cage era, they are ships that are still in service into the Cage era. It's not that difficult. And they look more advanced for the same reason the NX or Kelvin look more advanced than the TOS Conni, because in TV we no longer make things out of cardboard.

captainhunter1 wrote: »

Because its really set in the JJ-verse, despite what they tell you.

No such thing as a JJ-verse, despite what you tell us. It's Prime, grow up.

Why does this need a new thread?​​

But cardboard is fun!

angrytarg

That cardboard fallacy aside, the Discovery doesn't look more modern than the Connie to me. The bridge module is a Daedalus inspired part, the saucer is a clumsy mess, the deflector dish looks like a steam machine in comparison and the interiors all look very space-shuttle-esque, the ship also uses pre-bank pulse turrets.​​

artan42

angrytarg wrote: »

That cardboard fallacy aside,

The old sets literally contained cardboard, that's not a fallacy, it's an observation.

angrytarg wrote: »

the Discovery doesn't look more modern than the Connie to me, The bridge module is a Daedalus inspired part

That dosn't make it look older because it's just a spherical part, it's not used in the same way as the sphere on the Daedalus was. In the same way using a saucer doesn't make a ship look TOSish.

angrytarg wrote: »

the Discovery doesn't look more modern than the Connie to me, the saucer is a clumsy mess

That dosn't make it less advanced or retro, it also brings to mind the Dreadnought Class, the most advanced TOS/KT era ship design.

angrytarg wrote: »

the Discovery doesn't look more modern than the Connie to me, the deflector dish looks like a steam machine in comparison

It's lighted, unlike any other TOS ship. The very complaints that were used to make the NX more advanced looking, a lighted deflector.

angrytarg wrote: »

the Discovery doesn't look more modern than the Connie to me, and the interiors all look very space-shuttle-esque

The interiors resemble DS9 and TNG a lot with the angular walls and darker colours, more advanced in universe than primary coloured, flat, balsa wood and cardboard.

angrytarg wrote: »

the Discovery doesn't look more modern than the Connie to me, the ship also uses pre-bank pulse turrets.

We haven't seen it fire weapons properly yet but from an out of universe perspective, the turrets seen on the NX and Kelvin era ships are far superior weapons to the emitter banks of the KT, TOS, and TMP era ships, giving as much, if not more coverage than the TNG era strips.​​

angrytarg

@artan42 But you do realize that there is no law that you cannot recreate the looks of these sets with different materials, right? The other stuff is a matter of taste. The Discovery looks okay-ish while being primitive enough, the only thing I'd love to see is the pylons being angled but that would destroy the chevron shape. The bridge has railings and all, the only thing kmore advanced is the computer screens and those holo-displays can easily be recreated on a TOS bridge without being too out of place.​​

silverlobes

artan42 wrote: »

angrytarg wrote: »

That cardboard fallacy aside,

The old sets literally contained cardboard, that's not a fallacy, it's an observation.

They also contained a lot of wood. As did the TNG sets. As does the Ares set and as do the Discovery sets.

That the sets contained cardboard is an observation, but which you are using fallaciously to try and devalue TOS, and thus justify the need for a revamped appearance which has little in common to the project they are presenting.

Using an observation fallaciously is still a fallacy.

Because the Discovery and Shinzau are not ships from the Cage era, they are ships that are still in service into the Cage era. It's not that difficult.

It's 'difficult enough' that we even need to perform such mental shenanigans to make it align

captainhunter1 wrote: »

Because its really set in the JJ-verse, despite what they tell you.

No such thing as a JJ-verse, despite what you tell us. It's Prime, grow up.

Zeitgeist says there is. General convention(JJVerse), over dictated-speech(Kelvin Timeline)

It's only Prime because They Say So. By any reasonable observation, it is not. The only reason why they said it is Prime, is because they feared that if they said it was a reboot(or different timeline) they would lose a significant percentage of the fanbase who aren't fans of the recent movies, and so they wouldn't get so many subscribers. How has that plan worked out? Let's talk about that now...

According to the How Will You View Discovery? thread, the best they have to hope for, is that people will like the pilot and then consider subscribing. No upfront subscriptions. (Edit:There have now been two votes to subscribe once it airs) And given this is a community of diehard fans, extrapolating that to be representative of the fanbase to be generous, if they can't convince all of us to subscribe upfront, what hope do they have of convincing casual viewers to subscribe??

My prediction is that the 13 episodes get shown out of double-down stubbornness, and then the series gets shelved, and then in the hearts and minds of the fanbase, Discovery is relegated to the status of Highlander II (where people try and pretend it doesn't exist, and that it never happened) Not exactly the best course for a flagship show used to gain subscribers to be taking.

"Iceberg Ahead!"

"PREPARE FOR RAMMING-SPEED!!!"

*Extratextbecausereasons

artan42

angrytarg wrote: »

@artan42 But you do realize that there is no law that you cannot recreate the looks of these sets with different materials, right? The other stuff is a matter of taste. The Discovery looks okay-ish while being primitive enough, the only thing I'd love to see is the pylons being angled but that would destroy the chevron shape. The bridge has railings and all, the only thing kmore advanced is the computer screens and those holo-displays can easily be recreated on a TOS bridge without being too out of place.​​

It's the materials that determine the look. Other than the bridge every single other TOS set is unbelievably cheap looking and astoundingly awful. Everything is flat and featureless and looks like a 'trendy' 60s office building and not like a starship. Even series one and two of Red Dwarf managed to make the sets look like a spaceship in a fraction I the TOS budget.

The bridge is okay but needed what it got in the TOS films (especially V) to look realistic enough. The KT films and DSC at least are giving us displays that show information and switches and leavers that do things instead of laughable jelly beans that even the Doctor Who team wouldn't use them.

TOS got its update, it was called TMP and it was an eyesore that looked worse (if more realistic).

k20vtec

They dont want to invest a completely new serie about 23th century with all the gizmo writers can dream up so they take the easy route and just use a established franchise that already have consumers.

k20vtec

Meh, i like the clean look, not as cluttered as modern scifi shows where you cant lean on the bulkhead without accidentally activate sef-destruct, load torpedos and pop open the airlock. But they, touch screen and proto-lcars, atleast thats less clutter (but then touch screen/lcars have their own set of issues).

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

brian334

Why is there an obsession to have conformity to any previous Trek look? They all did it differently, but this one case is different?

TMP drastically changed every single aspect of the Trek aesthetic from what eas seen in TOS
TWoK drastically changed everything except the ship, which was replaced at the end of the movie.
TNG did it again with a complete makeover of exactly the same stuff being complained about for Discovery.
The only reason DS9 and Voyager had similar aesthetics to TNG was because the same people were doing it and it was cheaper and easier to reuse existing props, and even then there were variations on a theme.
Enterprise again reimagined the look of Trek so much so that it looked like a NASA promotional more than a Trek show.

But Discovery is held to a different standard because it doesn't look like a failed pilot episode which wasn't seen on TV for twenty years after the show was cancelled, it doesn't look like a pilot which was deemed too esoteric for the unsophisticated audience of the day to understand and so other episodes were shown first, and it doesn't look like an episode recycled from the original pilot and used later in the series with wrapper acts by the new crew.

It is very apparent that:

The look of TOS had more to do with the popularization of color television than any desire to create a future aesthetic. Yes, folks, when TOS came out, I watched it for the original run, (when my parents weren't watching something else,) on our family's giant console television which had a 20-something inch black and white cathode ray tube. It was 1974 before we could afford a color TV, and it was 1976 before our family had more than one working TV. And we were average middle class Americans.

The look of the two pilots was immediately abandoned by the production team, and thus is not only never established as a fleet-wide aesthetic, but it is an aesthetic the producers rejected prior to filming the first episode of the new series.

So, I ask again, having asked several times already and never receiving any better answer than 'I want it to,' why should any new Trek adhere to an appearance established in two failed pilot episodes which was thereafter rejected by the creators?

I never expected Discovery to conform to any established look because that is something Trek has never done outside of an homage episode on DS9. I plan to take Discovery on its own merits, judge it for what it is, and not worry about external conformity. It is a wholly new show, and it shouldn't be handicapped with an appearance that was rejected 60 years ago as unsuitable for TV.

k20vtec

I think rather than consoels and chairs, a bigger question migh be the difference between Shenzhou and Discovery... Are time-travelling shennaigans invovled? Are one of the ship som ekind of super-special-black-ops-prototype model?

silverlobes

brian334 wrote: »

Why is there an obsession to have conformity to any previous Trek look? They all did it differently, but this one case is different?

TMP drastically changed every single aspect of the Trek aesthetic from what eas seen in TOS
TWoK drastically changed everything except the ship, which was replaced at the end of the movie.
TNG did it again with a complete makeover of exactly the same stuff being complained about for Discovery.
The only reason DS9 and Voyager had similar aesthetics to TNG was because the same people were doing it and it was cheaper and easier to reuse existing props, and even then there were variations on a theme.
Enterprise again reimagined the look of Trek so much so that it looked like a NASA promotional more than a Trek show.

But Discovery is held to a different standard because it doesn't look like a failed pilot episode which wasn't seen on TV for twenty years after the show was cancelled, it doesn't look like a pilot which was deemed too esoteric for the unsophisticated audience of the day to understand and so other episodes were shown first, and it doesn't look like an episode recycled from the original pilot and used later in the series with wrapper acts by the new crew.

It is very apparent that:

The look of TOS had more to do with the popularization of color television than any desire to create a future aesthetic. Yes, folks, when TOS came out, I watched it for the original run, (when my parents weren't watching something else,) on our family's giant console television which had a 20-something inch black and white cathode ray tube. It was 1974 before we could afford a color TV, and it was 1976 before our family had more than one working TV. And we were average middle class Americans.

The look of the two pilots was immediately abandoned by the production team, and thus is not only never established as a fleet-wide aesthetic, but it is an aesthetic the producers rejected prior to filming the first episode of the new series.

So, I ask again, having asked several times already and never receiving any better answer than 'I want it to,' why should any new Trek adhere to an appearance established in two failed pilot episodes which was thereafter rejected by the creators?

I never expected Discovery to conform to any established look because that is something Trek has never done outside of an homage episode on DS9. I plan to take Discovery on its own merits, judge it for what it is, and not worry about external conformity. It is a wholly new show, and it shouldn't be handicapped with an appearance that was rejected 60 years ago as unsuitable for TV.

There's a lot of complex question/begging the question in there (presuming a rhetorical question to be valid, simply from its construction) but to summarize:

The producers said they were doing something Prime Timeline(to get interest from fans of everything but the last three movies), and used the tagline of 10 years before Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise, to set the period(and pull on the strings of nostalgia to that early series.

That statement of intent, means doing a project with a particular look, in a particular way, which, with the exception of the communcators and phasers, they simply have not done. They said they were doing one thing (to get interest and subscribers) and they have delivered something completely different.

That's why they[the producers]'re being 'held to a standard' (because that's the fracking standard for the series which they set for their gorram selves!!!!)

Had they just said they were doing something new, or something to explore the Kelvin Timeline, while there would still be people that it doesn't appeal to, there wouldn't be this level of outright rejection which there is. But riding on the coattails of an IP which many have memories of since childhood, and then outright taking a deuce on said coattails and rubbing it into the fabric; That's going to put people's backs up

jonsills

A quick question for @baddmoonrizin - should this topic go in the FTC collection yet? We've already got what, seven or eight threads dissecting all of the imaginary issues with a TV show none of us have seen yet?

baddmoonrizin

@jonsills I've already got a list half a mile long of potential topics that I've submitted for inclusion in the FCT that I'm still waiting on approval for. By the time I get enough issues together for a second list, this will probably be a non-issue.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

starkaos

valoreah wrote: »

brian334 wrote: »

Why is there an obsession to have conformity to any previous Trek look? They all did it differently, but this one case is different?

Give the fanatical zealots here a few minutes and they'll tell you how the visual design differences are the same as real life physical assault.

How is that any different from some people being offended from being asked where they are from, saying "God bless you" after someone sneezes, or saying "How's it hanging?"

There better be a very good reason for why the Klingons and their ships look nothing like what they should. If the race design and ship design was used on a new alien race, then there would be no problem. The main problem is that the designs should look similar to what was shown in TOS. A Star Trek fan should be able to watch a scene and tell that the aliens are Klingon without needing anyone to point it out. At least with Into Darkness, anyone could tell that the Klingon was a Klingon even though there was slight differences. The Klingons in Discovery looking nothing like Klingons. If the Enterprise is shown in Discovery, then we should be able to tell that it is the Enterprise even though there are slight differences to improve the look.

Unknown

This content has been removed.