981 replies to this topic

[1701D]

I wasn't trying to negate your opinion or make some counter argument... I was just trying to understand it.
 
So... I was wondering if you considered any other series in the franchise... or even movies... since they did change a lot even with TMP... as re-boots? JJ verse aside of course. 

For me I think its easier to accept radical redesigns and changes if, like you said, the shows move forward within the fictional timeline. Had Disocvery been a sequel to Voyager then the look would of sat a lot better with me. I would technically call each incarnation of Star Trek that radically changed what had come before reboots of some kind. TNG rebooted Star Trek, The Motion Picture/Wrath of Khan rebooted Star Trek - but because they came after each previous incarnation, the redesigns and changes made were easier to except.

Enterprise to a lesser extent again rebooted the franchise and suffers from the same problem as Discovery only to begin to fix it by season 4. Enterprise was 100 years before Kirk and Co. a lot could of happened in that century to explain the visual changes between Enterprise and TOS. When Enterprise eventually did visit the TOS era, it was faithfully recreated and Ive got to say, it didnt look as bad as I think everyone expected the 60s cardboard look to look on screen. I thought the Defiant in the Enterprise S4 Mirror Universe episode looked wonderful.

Dont get me wrong, I thought the Enterprise in Discovery looked fantastic and actually if you take TOS out of the franchise. The look of this Enterprise fits perfectly between the NX01 and the refit Enterprise from TMP and basically thats what Ive decided to do.

TOS is the exception here. TOS was the base prototype model for a franchise that began with TMP. If you discount TOS (as important a show as it might be) then from Enterprise, through Discovery and into TMP, visually it works. But yes, in my opinion Discovery is a reboot, all be it a visual one that very much says this is a Star Trek for 2017/18 rather than this is a period piece and a specific point in the prime timeline canon.

Some might think that redesigning and reimagining the look is very lazy, some may think it needed it because you cant have the same designs from the sixties in a Tv show made in 2017. I think theres a half way point in which the style of TOS could of been properly embraced and modernised without loosing the aesthetic of that show.

But Discovery is its own thing and I think despite being a bit of a jumbled mess plot wise. I cant really fault the production for not being passionate about making something worth our while. It hasnt tanked, its done very very well for itself despite all of the problems its gone through in coming together. The look of the Enterprise in Discovery isnt what Id have chosen for my imaginary 23rd Century Star Trek ship personally but I have to admit, the last 4/5 minutes of Discovery this week had me squealing with joy as the Enterprise came into view and the original Star Trek fanfare played. This is Star Trek guys, retooled, rebooted, revived for a modern TV audience and if youre willing to see TOS as a test bed for a franchise that began with 1979s The Motion Picture, then this series aesthetics does really fit into the gap between Enterprise and The Motion Picture.

[Alteran195]

Everything in Discovery looks like a progression from Enterprise, and could believably evolve into the aesthetic of the movie era.

TOS has always been the odd series out with an aesthetic that was completely abandoned and forgotten by Roddenberry as soon as he had a larger budget and more modern effects.

[1701D]

Everything in Discovery looks like a progression from Enterprise, and could believably evolve into the aesthetic of the movie era.

TOS has always been the odd series out with an aesthetic that was completely abandoned and forgotten by Roddenberry as soon as he had a larger budget and more modern effects.

Thats true. TMP was really the birth of the franchise we know today in terms of its visuals.

Do you think it could flow quite nicely into TMP too? After seeing the Enterprise in tonights episode, it looks like it could quite easily be refitted into the USS Enterprise from TMP.

Ive thought that all along about Discovery, that it has more of a visual connection to TMP than TOS.

Putting aside its importance in popular culture, is it possible for people to entertain the idea that actually TOS could be glossed over in terms of its look?

[Alteran195]

I think there are a decent amount of fans that accept TOS is so old that them updating the aesthetic is understandable. Especially when it flows so well off of Enterprise.

TMP and all of the TOS movies have an aesthetic that still holds up fairly well in comparison with TOS, and even TNG to some extent.

The Refit bridge in TMP has similar color palettes to Discovery, and while it doesnt have as large of displays as the DISCO, I still see it fitting fairly well with what weve seen in Discovery.

I really cant wait to see how they update the interior of the Enterprise.

[Alex]

So... whats the main story message here? After all that I mean... whats the take away?  Is there one? 

There honestly isn't one, and that may truly be my biggest issue with this series and this finale in particular. The whole thing just falls flat in my opinion because it doesn't feel like it has any real follow–through. The final episode of the Mirror arc honestly felt like more of a finale than this did because it actually had an objective (get home/back to the Prime Universe,) and then went and followed through with it. The Klingon arc hasn't done this at all, and feels like it was half–baked from the get go, which is one reason why DSC has been so tough for me to watch, and I'm actively trying to like this series, which I shouldn't have to do, it should just come naturally like it did for TOS–VGR, and I say that as someone whose first–run viewings of Trek started with TNG at a very young age.

 

It was obviously from day one to me a reboot. I think the thing that's rubbed me the wrong way all along is that they keep claiming that this is something new, bold and different and yet they're following the formulas of other popular shows while throwing all these fan service references to TOS in. It feels to me like this show was influenced more by producers and executives rather than creative storytellers. To me Star Trek is something that should lead not follow and a new series should be able to stand on it's own better without multiple visits from past characters and throwbacks to TOS.

You've honestly made most of my planned points already s8film40, but I think what bugs me the most is that this actually isn't a reboot in any meaningful way, (nor should it be,) but just sloppy writing with TOS fan service as you mentioned, and a forced visual update that fundamentally conflicts with the setting of the show and the very point of choosing that setting to begin with. I could even tolerate the Shenzhou and the Discovery being slightly updated, it's the other egregious errors on the visual front that make my skin crawl and shatter the fourth wall for me.

 

Yeah exactly. Film and television is visual storytelling. If you make a period piece set in the 50s and decide to update the design of the cars youre not making it visually more appealing youre making it incorrect.

This right here, this is exactly what I'm getting at. I can buy the Shenzhou and even the Discovery as "90 years after ENT," but the Constitution–class is another story. This is also why the uniforms rub me the wrong way. I could have taken them just fine if we ended with TOS–like uniforms in the finale, but we didn't, and this is supposedly concurrent with The Cage, which is why this is so irritating to me.

 

There's a difference in changing things just for the sake of changing the style and changing things because the technology allows them to be better portrayed. Taking the TOS 1701 for example, there is nothing about that design that ties it directly to the time period it was created in. The ship could be designed today and still work just as well. The problem is that it's iconic and for most people instantly makes them think of the 60's. So for this reason in the modern adaptions they've just done silly things like enlarge the nacelles or add little pieces of flare to try to give it a fresh look. Adding some extra details and paneling doesn't change the aesthetic but makes us think ok were just getting a better look at it then we did before. When you go and fundamentally change things though it's apparent to the audience that it's very different. From the audience perspective this has to be addressed. There are few ways to do that one is the producers simply say it's a reboot so pay no attention to that. Short of that reasoning an intelligent viewer has to right this one way or another either the new version isn't correct or the old one isn't correct. It's a direct continuity error and if not explained takes the viewer out of the story and makes them start asking themselves questions. As a filmmaker this is something that's a total failure and should be avoided at all costs.

This is exactly why I didn't want to see the 1701 in DSC at all. It was always going to be a can of worms if they brought the ship in while having the new uniforms and having it as Pike's Enterprise, and then that visual affront I was subjected to on Sunday was the icing on the cake of how not to do things. There's a very good reason previous producers always portrayed the 1701 exactly as it was originally portrayed (or as imperceptibly different as possible,) in previous shows, and why the Defiant in ENT was portrayed exactly as it was in TOS, and that's the fact that changing something like the iconic ship design is fundamentally going to piss people off. It's pulling the kind of stunt George Lucas did with the original Star Wars trilogy for the sake of making things fit in a way they had no reason to fit, and it never ends well. The worst part is that they could have whipped up a proper 1701 model and fans would have had a purely positive reaction to its appearance on screen, but tinkering for the sake of tinkering doesn't please anyone. If anything it took the shoddy writing of Will You Take My Hand and just added a visual irritant on top of a poorly told and barely resolved story. What's worse, this now has to be either completely ignored next season, or addressed head on in a way where we now have to buy that this is somehow after The Cage and before TOS, and that's just not going to work. It honestly feels like this show is in its own way most of the time, and that the creatives who actually cared are the ones no longer associated with the show.

[Gothneo]

I completely get... and even agree with folks on the uniforms... but at the same time I really like the DISCO design! Honestly they are more inline and true to ENT than anything else we've seen. But they really did change  a lot of things... almost a shock and awe attack... I wonder if they thought... "heck no matter what we do we'll upset some fans... so why not upset them all in some way?" 

 

I guess my point here is I have enough issues that I feel I need to just pick my top few, and as a result some things... like starlet uniforms being drastically different have fallen to the wayside. 

[1701D]

The main problem with Disco I have is that the writing was so messy. While the Burnham arc was a satisfying one from beginning to end, there were far too many roads taken with other characters and plots and then never fully fleshed out. To this day I still do not get why Harry Mudd had to show up at all?! The spaw drive technology... I mean did we really need it? What was Commander Landrys beef? Its as if the writers were like, quick we need something sci-Fi in this show, I know lets do a new drive system that needs a human! Its a cool idea but it kinda never fully gets thought out properly. And the war with the Klingons? It kinda went nowhere... as for the Mirror Universe? Why did we go there exactly? Ok Lorca was a baddie from that universe but this was Burnhams show... again lorca realised that this was a mirror to his universe and wanted Burnham to take back with him... he realised that the spaw drive could take him back but needed Stamets to do so many jumps for it to work... I mean thats just utter gobbledygook.

It wasnt that any of these ideas were bad idea necessarily, they were just executed really badly and never thought out or followed through and the final episode really showed how many corners theyd written themselves into during the course of this season up to the penultimate episode last week. Cornwall just giving up on Starfleets horrific plan to commit genocide? I mean first of all thats just crazy, and second of all if she was that easily persuaded not to do it, why even come up with the plan in the first place... everything felt very rushed, very slap dash and just very pointless.

There were some lovely nods to canon but on the whole, Im sitting here a day after watching the finale thinking about the whole season and saying, that was great but what did I just watch?!

The whole season felt like the TNG episode Conspiracy. Its as if Star Trek: Discoverys writers and producers had a great idea but through the problems they had encountered with Bryan Fuller leaving and having to rebuild the show after hed gone, perhaps made them have to rush and slap together something that still had the potential of being great through the brilliant cast but just never really spent enough time on the plot.

And that is really the crux of my problem with this season; its rushed plot and storylines. I have to give them credit though, this show has one of the best casts ever to appear on Star Trek. Burnhams arc was followed through, Stamets I think was underserved in the finale but had had some sort of closure, Tilly has just been wonderful all season. Lorca I felt was underserved once it was known he was from the Mirror Universe (my hope is now that the captain theyre going to collect is indeed prime Lorca), Sarus journey in this season seemed quite satisfying too and Ash/Voq... well Shazad Latif is just brilliant. They could of really messed that up but didnt.

All in all its the characters and the cast that hold this show together and are all testaments to no matter how badly the plot and storylines are constructed around you, if you have a top notch cast, you can achieve great things - thats what Disocvery is, its a superb cast and thats why hopefully season 2 will marry this superb cast to a more robust, simplified plot and tighter writing.

Im intrigued as to how theyll approach the TOS characters in this show. Pike and Spock? Will they be recast, will they indeed get Bruce Greenwood and Zachary Quinto to play their prime counterparts - that would be fantastic - or will they do some motion capture CGI and resurrect Leonard Nimoy and Jeffery Hunter...

[Gothneo]

I do agree with you about the writing 1701D. 

 

An article on EW talking about season 2... and some of what worked and didn't work in Season 1.

 

No surprises to me... other than maybe a bit of denial yet from the writers... but...

 

1. The long sub-texted klingon sequences threw people out of the story

 

2. The Phavo episode was one of fans favs... I would contend because it was more Rodd-Trek than most others. 

 

3. They still seem to insist that all canon issues will be resolved... starting next season.

 

4. They claim the whole Season one was written with teh ending in mind... the end being simply that the 1701 shows up. 

 

And there plenty more in that article. 

[s8film40]

I wasn't trying to negate your opinion or make some counter argument... I was just trying to understand it.

 

So... I was wondering if you considered any other series in the franchise... or even movies... since they did change a lot even with TMP... as re-boots? JJ verse aside of course. 

To me it really comes down to the reason and intention of the changes. Are things being changed because it can be done better and still adequately tie the new thing into the past work or is it being done simply to make it look different and new. Lets take the Klingons for example. TMP updated the look, I don't think the intention was to change our perception of what Klingons looked like but since makeup work could be done much better and placing a brown guy with a beard in a modern motion picture would have looked out of place they decided to make that change. They did it in a way where we could imagine that perhaps that's what Klingons were supposed to look like and then later Enterprise worked in a story to even explain the change. Now looking at Discovery why did they change the look of the Klingons? The last representation of Klingons was only done a few years prior in Enterprise, there was absolutely no need to change anything at this point were not talking about updating something from the 60's but something from the mid 2000's. The only reason you would do that is to make it look different or in other word reboot it. Now looking at TOS sets and costumes, almost every other Star trek series has referenced this time period and when they did remained accurate to the style and look and it worked quite well. So again these sets and styles were not just established as part of the Star Trek world in the 60's but again as recently as the mid 2000's. I could accept some minor tweaking to the designs especially given it's a different ship, but it should at least look like it belongs. It seems pretty clear to me they wanted to do something different new and edgy, but still tie it into the popular and iconic parts of the franchise. Personally I think you have to choose one or the other. If you want to do something new and edgy you have to have the courage to put the past in the past and not rely on the old iconography too much. Expand the universe of Star Trek and find a new area and time to make your own. The other option is to essentially make a fan film which is what they chose, but if you do this you have to embrace and honor the look and style to make it fit cohesively. What we are left with is a hybrid of these two options it's trying to be the best of both but failing on both sides. For this reason I consider it a reboot because it just doesn't fit. They don't want to call it a reboot because they don't want people to feel it isn't "real" Star Trek, they tried to do the same thing with JJ Trek saying it's not a reboot but rather a different timeline. In the end it is what it is and most people will see it for that.

 

To answer your question more directly I think throughout the movies and TV series up until JJ Abrams there were cases where the line was stretched but never crossed, everything since JJ Abrams has been a full on reboot.

[Gothneo]

thanks S8Film40, To your point any changes they made to Klingons in ENT,were largely tweaks and in-line with earlier shows. 

 

What I don't get is I've read several place that the writers wanted to "Expand" and "Humanize" the Klingons... but to anyone that watched Seasons 4-9 of DS9 that wouldn't seem necessary. 

 

So in that regard... I would agree that they decided to reboot the Klingons. 

[VulcanFanatic]

thanks S8Film40, To your point any changes they made to Klingons in ENT,were largely tweaks and in-line with earlier shows. 
 
What I don't get is I've read several place that the writers wanted to "Expand" and "Humanize" the Klingons... but to anyone that watched Seasons 4-9 of DS9 that wouldn't seem necessary. 
 
So in that regard... I would agree that they decided to reboot the Klingons. 

DS9 only had 7 seasons.

[s8film40]

DS9 only had 7 seasons.

Wait you don't remember seasons 8 & 9! Are you experiencing the Mandela effect?

[VulcanFanatic]

Wait you don't remember seasons 8 & 9! Are you experiencing the Mandela effect?

I wish I could forget every Star Trek put out by CBS Paramount since 2009.

[Whirlygig]

This is pretty silly. If Star Trek were not a TV series, but a novel series, none of you would be complaining about "look" and I'd hope you'd still be Trek fans. No novel would describe the ships in such detail a reader would see a difference between the Discovery 1701 and The Cage 1701. Only if it went out of its way to do so would a novel describe Klingon head shape in such detail you'd know a difference, and if it did, it would say "different race" and you would accept it.

But because we are lucky enough that Star Trek gets to begin life in a visual medium, you won't give it any passes?

Now if the story itself were a gross deviation that's another thing. You would know that in a novel. You would know all the myriad non-look-related missteps of JJverse. Look was never my big problem there, but more of the problem sprinkles on the problem icing on the problem cake. And Discovery has story things to discuss... but look is just one visual artist's (or team's) projection of the material onto a screen... the material itself stands on its own.

[Gothneo]

The story is where my biggest critique is... I think, for me the biggest difference between DISCO and JJverse, is that JJ took characters like Kirk and Spock, and re-wrote them in ways that based on all the years of seeing those character portrayed... just seemed very off. I don't have that issue in DISCO... but the unlike the JJverse movies, the entire story is a bit haphazard and fails to really conform to good writing standards... if it were a novel that is. 

 

I saw ST:2009 several times... and by in large it did what it was supposed to, which was reboot a franchise and re-introduce us to characters. STID,  was just a lazy retelling of a story we saw done better before... Beyond was better... its too bad they didn't just tell that story after the 2009 movie. 

 

Anyhow, I digress...  in DISCO we have a story where the writers say the Klingons and a war with them is the main arc, but in reality... it turned out to be a subplot and in reality, I think the tagline or description of season 1 of DISCO should be something like "The crew of Discovery find themselves 'through the looking glass' as they explore alien places, ideas and people and along the way discover more about themselves." or something like that.

 

I guess my final analysis is that I think the writing for the JJverse movies was crisper than S1 of DISCO... I just didn't care for what they wrote.

[s8film40]

This is pretty silly. If Star Trek were not a TV series, but a novel series, none of you would be complaining about "look" and I'd hope you'd still be Trek fans. No novel would describe the ships in such detail a reader would see a difference between the Discovery 1701 and The Cage 1701. Only if it went out of its way to do so would a novel describe Klingon head shape in such detail you'd know a difference, and if it did, it would say "different race" and you would accept it.

But because we are lucky enough that Star Trek gets to begin life in a visual medium, you won't give it any passes?

Now if the story itself were a gross deviation that's another thing. You would know that in a novel. You would know all the myriad non-look-related missteps of JJverse. Look was never my big problem there, but more of the problem sprinkles on the problem icing on the problem cake. And Discovery has story things to discuss... but look is just one visual artist's (or team's) projection of the material onto a screen... the material itself stands on its own.

This is why I don't like novels. Visual storytelling is a far richer experience. I've given Star Trek many passes as I mentioned previously and there are things in Discovery that I give a pass to as well. Again for me I will give it a pass if it's an understandable change. If it's change just for the sake of change then that's where I have a problem. The purpose of putting a story in a timeline that's very near the other stories is to tie them together. This can be a great thing because it helps to build upon the Star Trek universe, it brings people back to the older content and enables us to go back and rewatch that older content with a new perspective. If they go and change things so significantly that they no longer feel as though they fit together then what was the point? The whole production of the show feels very sloppy because of this. It's like they wanted to go in two directions at the same time and couldn't decide. How would Star Wars fans feel with the new Solo movie coming out if they decided to substantially change the Millennium Falcon to make it look more modern? I think everyone gives them a pass for recasting Solo, but I'm pretty sure they would be freaking out if the ship was changed. Why? Not because they're over the top nerds who pay close attention to details, but rather it wouldn't make any sense. The one thing we all have in common here is toys. Would you be willing to give a toy company a pass if they changed the collar of a uniform or the shape of an alien head? I mean after all it's just a silly detail right? How about if DST comes out with a ship and decides it would look "cooler" if they added extra details that never existed before? Lets look specifically at the 1701 that we could barely see in Discovery, had that ship been released as a toy/model a few years ago what do you suppose the reaction would have been?

[Whirlygig]

I don't know, you are asking a lot of questions there at the end that conflate different things.  Obviously you want a toy to look like the "real" thing, or as close to it as possible.  But I don't get my knickers in a twist over a slightly inaccurate Leia head like some people do, or wonky DST legs.

 

They actually did needlessly change the MF.  They will justify it somehow, but they didn't need to do that.  Nowhere near as big of a change there, so I get your point, but you can't say they did nothing to it.

 

You are comparing apples and oranges though with Wars & Trek, and I think you know that.

 

The look of Star Wars was designed in a way that was not meant to reflect our own future, but a lived-in, dilapidated, "old-futurey" look.  C-3PO was deliberately made to look like the Maschinenmensch from Metropolis, which everybody already knew at the time was an outdated vision of the future.  By doing that, it took on a simultaneously forward-and-backward-looking appearance, which understandably has a much longer shelf life for us present-day observers.  I don't know if we can call it a "brilliant" choice because many of these choices are accidental, subconscious, or made without all that much thought, but in hindsight, it ended up working pretty well for us since Rogue One and Solo still look appealing today.

 

Star Trek was made, in every incarnation, with a forward-looking-only approach.  It's not a galaxy "long ago" and "far away", it's *our* future.  If it doesn't reasonably look like the future anymore, it's not meeting its primary visual requirement.  You would rather it slavishly ruin the illusion of the future for current generations of viewers by dogmatically sticking to the outdated look of a streamlined 1960's nuclear power plant control room?  No, you would rather they just never told stories again in the TOS-era, unless they time travel back there for an episode or two in which case yes the future has to look like a 1960's nuclear plant again....right?  Why is that fair?

 

Also, the look of Star Wars was designed for the big screen, so more detail was called for in the ship and set design.  The look of TOS was designed for the small screen, both practically and budget-wise.  Too much detail would detract from the home experience of actually understanding what you were looking at on a tiny television screen in black-and-white.  It wasn't just Star Trek, either, that suffered from this, you can look at any show from that era, or even really the entire pre-HD era, and the sets were more minimalistic *not* because the production staff didn't want it to look accurate, but because you can only responsibly put so much detail into the frame when your target is a smaller, fuzzier screen.

 

Realistically there are not many youngsters who are going to start watching TOS as a result of Discovery, and then actually slog through and finish it.  It's not just the look that's outdated.  The production values, the stories, and even the dialogue are outdated.  The acting style is outdated.  The clothes and hair are outdated.  It all looks and feels like what silly 60's brains thought the future would be like, and the pacing is that of a snail compared to current entertainment.  If they do finish it (or even one episode), they will still have been chortling to themselves the entire time.  I was doing that myself in the 90's already.  Now it's worse by 30 years.

 

You don't inspire future generations of scientists by telling them the future is going to look like their grandparents' garage sale.

[Gothneo]

You don't inspire future generations of scientists by telling them the future is going to look like their grandparents' garage sale.

 

maybe the next generation of American Pickers though 

[s8film40]

I don't know, you are asking a lot of questions there at the end that conflate different things.  Obviously you want a toy to look like the "real" thing, or as close to it as possible.  But I don't get my knickers in a twist over a slightly inaccurate Leia head like some people do, or wonky DST legs.

 

They actually did needlessly change the MF.  They will justify it somehow, but they didn't need to do that.  Nowhere near as big of a change there, so I get your point, but you can't say they did nothing to it.

 

You are comparing apples and oranges though with Wars & Trek, and I think you know that.

 

The look of Star Wars was designed in a way that was not meant to reflect our own future, but a lived-in, dilapidated, "old-futurey" look.  C-3PO was deliberately made to look like the Maschinenmensch from Metropolis, which everybody already knew at the time was an outdated vision of the future.  By doing that, it took on a simultaneously forward-and-backward-looking appearance, which understandably has a much longer shelf life for us present-day observers.  I don't know if we can call it a "brilliant" choice because many of these choices are accidental, subconscious, or made without all that much thought, but in hindsight, it ended up working pretty well for us since Rogue One and Solo still look appealing today.

 

Star Trek was made, in every incarnation, with a forward-looking-only approach.  It's not a galaxy "long ago" and "far away", it's *our* future.  If it doesn't reasonably look like the future anymore, it's not meeting its primary visual requirement.  You would rather it slavishly ruin the illusion of the future for current generations of viewers by dogmatically sticking to the outdated look of a streamlined 1960's nuclear power plant control room?  No, you would rather they just never told stories again in the TOS-era, unless they time travel back there for an episode or two in which case yes the future has to look like a 1960's nuclear plant again....right?  Why is that fair?

 

Also, the look of Star Wars was designed for the big screen, so more detail was called for in the ship and set design.  The look of TOS was designed for the small screen, both practically and budget-wise.  Too much detail would detract from the home experience of actually understanding what you were looking at on a tiny television screen in black-and-white.  It wasn't just Star Trek, either, that suffered from this, you can look at any show from that era, or even really the entire pre-HD era, and the sets were more minimalistic *not* because the production staff didn't want it to look accurate, but because you can only responsibly put so much detail into the frame when your target is a smaller, fuzzier screen.

 

Realistically there are not many youngsters who are going to start watching TOS as a result of Discovery, and then actually slog through and finish it.  It's not just the look that's outdated.  The production values, the stories, and even the dialogue are outdated.  The acting style is outdated.  The clothes and hair are outdated.  It all looks and feels like what silly 60's brains thought the future would be like, and the pacing is that of a snail compared to current entertainment.  If they do finish it (or even one episode), they will still have been chortling to themselves the entire time.  I was doing that myself in the 90's already.  Now it's worse by 30 years.

 

You don't inspire future generations of scientists by telling them the future is going to look like their grandparents' garage sale.

Really I don't see very much in the design of TOS that is exclusively 60's. It was modern style of the time and still has a modern look. Star Trek is as much 60's as Star Wars is 70's. There are certainly elements that I would understand them updating, buttons and switches on the bridge for example. I think things like that could certainly be updated without completely changing the overall look. This is what I think it comes down to and where they crossed the line for me. The Discovery phaser for example in my opinion is perfect. The bridge to me looks far less modern and real than the TOS bridge. Ultimately it's all fiction and fantasy and for the same reason those who say we should look past these differences you could just as easily say that you should be able to look past the differences of the older style and look. They chose this era for a reason and that was to tie this show into the show of the past. For me if they're going to do that it has to look at least to a certain degree that it fits. In my opinion it doesn't. They failed to properly convey the story in a realistic way and that combined with a lack of science fiction focus is the reason I chose not to watch. I totally respect those that enjoy this, but if your looking for answers as to why Discovery has managed to lose a very large portion of the Star Trek fandom this is why. Had they set this further in the future and totally done their own thing it probably would have worked better.

 

Also I don't think Discovery is doing anything to inspire future generations of scientists. At best it's a fun show to watch, but it certainly isn't the deep meaningful science fiction that made Star Trek what it is.

[Alteran195]

This is the bridge of the Enterprise during The Cage. Notice the large computer displays, and even a seemingly touch screen displays on the helm/navigation station at the front of the bridge.

 

Discovery's bridge has a fairly similar color scheme, and just has larger displays with different, realistic data being displayed on them.

 

It even has those TOS style buttons and switches sporadically throughout.