www.ditl.org

based on the trailer ... can I say ... that for some things ... we start to be on the right track? (at least visually)

All I can say is that "Video not available"...

OK, doesn't look like it's changed much. The Disco crew are still in the same stupid uniforms. Same stupid ship and style still has holographic controls way too early for the setting. Still have robotic head crew. Now they're bringing "Vorlons / Angles" from B5 in, I'm not holding much hope for season 2 after seeing this.

I'm sorry to say ... but I think tos-style interfaces (and I'm starting to think even tng style) would be ridiculous to show today.
This does not mean that we could not put a few references while making it futuristic.

On uniforms I can agree ...

my hope (I believe it will happen little, mind you) is that at least partially repair the damage done to the Klingons.
They'll let me down ... but there's a hint of hope in the trailer

bladela wrote:I'm sorry to say ... but I think tos-style interfaces (and I'm starting to think even tng style) would be ridiculous to show today.

Which is why a prequel series would not be a good idea.

Or at least, say that STD is set in an alternate timeline.

And on this I agree ... but now the series is here ... better that it comes out something positive ... that summing up ... imho if they pull out good stories and without doing it on purpose to violate continuity when not strictly necessary. .. I can hold my nose a bit...

After all, the first of Enterprise I do not remember it was much better ... yet the third and specially fourth season were very positive.

bladela wrote:I'm sorry to say ... but I think tos-style interfaces (and I'm starting to think even tng style) would be ridiculous to show today.
This does not mean that we could not put a few references while making it futuristic.
er

Of course TOS Style computers would be ridiculous that's why It's updated since 2009.... but do you really think TNG would look ridiculous? Windows tried something not so far away of LCARS but in a more angular style...

It still make sense for a purely tactical interface.

It would seem ridiculous (but we are at the limit) as a futuristic vision, after all an interface like that I think is perfectly feasible and usable (if we neglect the buttons with random numbers ... ) already on a mobile phone.

It was certainly futuristic (imho) in the 80s, it is not a fault of the lcars system itself, but how much computer technology has advanced in these 30 years.

Then mind you, no one can have a real idea of what the computer interface will be like in the 23rd century, as far as I know they may not even have any visually, but be directly connected to the brain ... or even this might seem outdated...

to understand, two hundred years ago the interface of the "computers" was this:

Graham Kennedy wrote:

bladela wrote:I'm sorry to say ... but I think tos-style interfaces (and I'm starting to think even tng style) would be ridiculous to show today.

Which is why a prequel series would not be a good idea.

Or at least, say that STD is set in an alternate timeline.

Isn't it? Between the weird looking klingons, weird looking ship, weird looking mode of transportation etc. I never really even had the idea that this plays in the prime universe. Hence...I never really had that much of a problem with it....to me it is not a prequel....more like an reimagining, loosely based on Star Trek.

As such it was entertaining enough.....until the last episode or so...how they "solved" the war was beyond stupid...utterly unbelievable.

Atekimogus wrote:

Graham Kennedy wrote:

bladela wrote:I'm sorry to say ... but I think tos-style interfaces (and I'm starting to think even tng style) would be ridiculous to show today.

Which is why a prequel series would not be a good idea.

Or at least, say that STD is set in an alternate timeline.

Isn't it? Between the weird looking klingons, weird looking ship, weird looking mode of transportation etc. I never really even had the idea that this plays in the prime universe.

Me neither, but the producers have insisted over and over again that it does.

Why can't we just accept that film-making and budgets have changed over 50-years and that it can still be Star trek as long as the narrative elements remain the same?

For example, is ToS the story of ground-breaking visuals of the 23rd century or is it the stories of The Adventures of Captain Kirk and Co?


I guess I don't understand the need to take visuals of a show from the 60s as gospel truth,, especially if those visuals really have nothing to do with the narrative.

Sonic Glitch wrote:Why can't we just accept that film-making and budgets have changed over 50-years

I accept this.

and that it can still be Star trek as long as the narrative elements remain the same?

I reject this.

Why? Because the makers of Star Trek have spend over half a century telling me otherwise. Every single incarnation of the show (after the first one) has gone out of their way to establish that they are taking place in a single continuity, sometimes even to the extent of literally going back to revisit earlier incarnations and say "hi!" to them.

And to me, this was the single greatest achievement of the show. Sure there was weirdness and errors here and there, but it all hung together astonishingly well considering, and that was a tribute to the massive effort that everyone involved made in order to keep everything inline.

Then Discovery came along and said "balls to that, we'll do what we like because nothing else about Star Trek is important except us."

Well, they can do that. They own the franchise, they can shit on it if they want to. But they can't make me like it, they can't make me accept it, and they most certainly will never make me pay for it.

For example, is ToS the story of ground-breaking visuals of the 23rd century or is it the stories of The Adventures of Captain Kirk and Co?

I guess I don't understand the need to take visuals of a show from the 60s as gospel truth,, especially if those visuals really have nothing to do with the narrative.

And I don't understand why the story is considered as if it were a separate thing from those visuals. TOS looked how it looked; if you go to TOS that's how it should look. By all means implement that look in a better way - the remastered TOS for instance, is an absolutely perfect demonstration of how to use modern methods to implement what TOS actually looked like.

But if you make it look different then you haven't actually gone to TOS, even if you claim that you have.

This, for instance...



...is not the NCC-1701. They can call it the NCC-1701, they can pretend that it is all day long if they want to, but it isn't. If you want to accept it as such then that's your business, but I won't and I don't, because the people who make the show have spent fifty years telling that that's not what the NCC-1701 looks like. And frankly I resent Aaron Harberts and Gretchen J. Berg telling all those people that their work is shit.

Not to mention that the actual NCC-1701 looks far better than that thing. I watched the whole first season of Discovery, and I didn't see a single good ship design in it. Not one. They ranged from bad to just plain comically ridiculous. If you're going to try and sell me something new and improved then at least don't do such a bloody horrific job of 'improving' it, maybe?