Trekkies btfo

Trekkies btfo

Other urls found in this thread:

quora.com/Why-are-submarine-operating-rooms-kept-dark
quora.com/What-is-it-like-inside-the-bridge-CIC-Command-Centre-of-a-modern-warship
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mood_lighting
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The tech is related to the story and themes.

Name two things that aren't arguably at least indirectly related in some way you fucking aspie

>trek is about the stories and themes
Then write a book. Why make it a television show if you're going to completely abandon any sense of visual continuity?

That's where you're wrong kiddo

its about the trek not the tech man just turn your brain off!

Do you have an example of how LED touchscreens or holograms replacing viewscreens would alter the kind of stories told or are you just talking out of your ass? It's not like they're getting rid of warp cores or transporters which have always been way more integral to plots than how ships talked to each other

> In episode 2F09, when Itchy plays Scratchy's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is a magic xylophone, or something? Ha ha, boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

>The Force is something in your bloodstream

>It's about the stories and themes, right?

Anyone who thinks they should make it look like a low-budget 60s show for "consistency" is fucking retarded and you should kill yourself.

>visual continuity
wow it's fucking nothing

>Trust me there's no way we could tell these stories properly if the blinking lights with no purpose aren't attached to a console made of 100% cardboard

ACKSHUALLY

>cuckshills in full force

Set phasers to shedlock!

STD has been hijacked by the 'diversity' crowd so get over it.
Atleast we have the old trek series.

>inb4 star trek was always diverse
Yes it was but when was that made to be such a big deal like it is now?

Fuck off cbs.

untrue

TOS looked like fucking dog shit.

Which is fine, it was the 1960s and their budget wasn't exactly huge.

But people don't wanna watch a sci-fi where it looks like a space ship has technology of levels lower than ours current tech.

Discovery has a lot of issues, but this isn't one of them.

>Not liking a show because of how it's marketed
You know if any previous trek show was aired for the first time today shills would be selling it exactly the same way. We just live in a time where diversity is actually a selling point for something instead of a quality nobody gives a shit about.

Your argument is that there is no value or purpose to coherent visual design in a fictional universe?

>we want our blinking LED diodes instead of actual screens

wow people really are retarded

I thought JJ did am alright job of updating it

But STD has lower tech levels than the real world. Interior lighting is on par with late the late 1800s.

Yeah sure It was the marketing that got me and the actual show please shut up shill

>It's an "user thinks calling somebody a shill or a cuck counts as an argument" episode
I hate these

got em

too many whites

So why did they change it?

kek this

So are you saying they played up the diversity in DSC? Because I've already watched the first two episodes and they focused way more on explosions and klingons than the fact that anybody on the bridge was black or Asian. Only the shills trying to sell the show cared about that, unless you care to give me an example from the show proving me wrong

Season 2 RIP

are you fucking kidding?
I can't tell

kek

Visual continuity does not mean literally using the same props and costumes. Are you retarded or do you actually not understand the term?

Um... am I the only one that's noticed the guy's wearing a skirt?

not kidding then
jesus christ get a grip hahahaha

Fucking lel

>imaginative future technology isn't a big part of what makes trek cool
>canon isn't important
>consistency isn't important
>roddenberry sucks
>gritty++
>pew pew pew

BOY I SURE LOVE THE NEW STAR TREK

Star Trek has the unenviable job of having to look like a believable future, but also somehow fit in with the 50 years of existing material to form a coherent fictional universe.

Star Wars get's a free pass because it's set in "a long time ago far far away" it might as well be a fantasy setting. Star Trek is about us, humans, in the future complete with contemporary references, our own history, and some small attempt at making the shit on screen scientifically informed.

Any new show has to look like the future to us in 2017, but generally adhere to rules and devices established in 1966. You can't match aesthetics because you'd lose all immersion.

No. Trek is about wooden consoles painted black and blinking diodes. Advanced tech is for pleb normies, not hipst-- I mean PATRICIANS like us.

>Wearing pants when he knows his legs won't be in the final shot
I think that blue line is where they crop it for the aspect ratio they're using. I think he's just wearing boxers, not a skirt. Like when newscasters don't wear any pants because they have a desk covering their legs for the whole show

>chad sitting vs virgin standing

lol

...

That flat, even TV lighting is a byproduct of running on a lean budget, not so much a stylistic choice.

>Like when newscasters don't wear any pants because they have a desk covering their legs for the whole show
>actually thinking this is a thing that happens

lol

What about previous Trek shows does not meet these criteria?

who the fuck cares, its going to die based on the subscription serve nonsense

>it might as well be a fantasy setting
because it fucking is, it's about a young orphan learning the ways of an ancient order of space wizards to defeat the dark space emperor and his black knight

Jesus, just say it's set in the JJverse already, CBS.

Command and control room on an aircraft carrier for reference

>imaginative future technology
Yeah being hung up on what the 70s thought was futuristic sure is imaginative even when the knobs obviously mean nothing. This is what Trek was about.

...

in 2017

The only time that happened is in that stupid DS9 episode where they inserted the characters into a TOS episode and while it was fun fan service and a neat gimmick it only worked on a "haha they're on those old awful sets but taking it seriously" level.

I can't believe you Trekkies are seriously so autistic as to be mad about continuity of the ship's visual interfaces when TOS's props don't even look futuristic compared to 2017. Obviously they're going to update that shit so it looks futuristic.

I mean ffs, there's lower hanging fruit: Why do futuristic starships need mood lighting on the bridge?

>Wahh I'm not creative enough to make something futuristic that looks like Trek
>Here enjoy this green screen and blue wireframes
>We couldn't even draw inspiration from outrun
>We are the soviet architects of creativity

>Why do futuristic starships need mood lighting on the bridge?

On good shows, we want the audience to be able to see the actors.

Why didn't they just set it after the later series? I mean, then they would have no worries about this shit.

They could even get Brent Spiner or whoever the fuck to cameo on the first episode, the bridge would look different and more futuristic, the uniforms could look in whatever way they wanted. Fuck, this whole shitstorm would have been avoided.

>A dark, cold, blue bridge vs the plush, comfy bridge from TNG

Jesus, why do they now keep making these interiors look so ugly? Even Voyager's bridge looked like the Event Horizon.

I think it's more to do with the show not "looking" like Star Trek

I can guarantee you retards would be crying about episodes like Far Beyond the Stars if the other series were airing today

TNG S01E01 five minutes in.

Science fiction is not just fiction with technology.

>Sup Forumstards that never watched any of the trek series are still making poor arguments about STD
Humm

quora.com/Why-are-submarine-operating-rooms-kept-dark

Blue is a terrible low-light color anyway, way too much white. Should be red, like on submarines.

>Why didn't they just set it after the later series? I mean, then they would have no worries about this shit.

So they can tie in with JJ Abrams. None of the people making the decisions about ST:D are even literate about Trek, let alone true fans.

Bridge on the left isn't actually the main set, it was from another ship that exploded. We don't know what the main bridge is gonna look like yet.

That's the only part of Star Trek they wanted to have any real continuity with.

quora.com/What-is-it-like-inside-the-bridge-CIC-Command-Centre-of-a-modern-warship

>Modern war ships have everything displayed on computer screens, which doesn't require it to be dark. However, when it's dark outside the ship (I'm talking about surface war ships here, not submarines), then you keep it dark below deck too so your eyes won't have to adjust if you go topside and to prevent light from "leaking" out and making the ship more visisble.

Because the best lighting to work with screens for long periods of time is what you see in that aircraft carrier picture above, not "hotel lobby" lighting that you get on the bridge of the D.

Gotta be dark for tacticool my man. Colors are lame as fuck didn't you know?

T.Klingon

Red is the colour of Klingons and communists.

Post-VOY has just as many problems, people that aren't terribly autistic about the star trek universe don't really grok just how fucked up everything is.

I wish the kelvin universe had worked out a bit better because Star Trek really does need a reset of some sort to clear some space for new shit.

Then why did Starfleet decide much later on to light the ships more like, you know, daylight? And why were they lit like daylight before? Starfleet went through this weird phase of really liking to build their bridges to look like 20th century blue water battleships?

imagine how cool his balls are though

>imaginative technology isn't a big part of what makes star trek cool
So she you saying they got rid of transporters and starships? Shields and tractor beams? Tricorders? I won't mention replicators since they are from TNG-era but those are all prices of technology that I think of when I hear "imaginative trek tech". The blinking lights on wooden boxes painted grey was never something that mattered. Bridge officers managed to yell information at the captain using LCARS displays in TNG just as efficiently as they did with random lights in TOS. If you honestly thought that was the technology in Trek that mattered than you're more autistic than I thought.

This isn't true for any modern ship control room.

Everything in sci-fi regardless of how batshit crazy is based on something in the present.

I bet he puts medicated powder with menthol on every morning. Just for that chilly feeling.

...

>Good! T-then my work here is done!

I don't like Star Trek at all but what a cop-out.

>it's an "autist expects arguments against his dumb ramblings" episode

the worst

>Post-VOY has just as many problems, people that aren't terribly autistic about the star trek universe don't really grok just how fucked up everything is.
Can you give me a quick rundown? I'm legit interested.

>Everything in sci-fi regardless of how batshit crazy is based on something in the present.

That's not an answer and you're dumb.

TNG invented shit that we wouldn't have for 20-30 years.

SJWs always double down on their bullshit.

Technology is a fucking science you dolt.

((Sullivan))

If they wanted to do more advanced looking trek and made it canon they should have done it post Voy or made it Kelvin Timeline at the current moment it either Retcons all pre existing trek apart from the JJ verse or itself isn't canon

>make mistake
>get called out on it
>'oh it doesn't matter'

His work is to worry people?

...

Didn't somebody who works for Bethesda do the same thing when it was pointed out how badly they fucked Fallout's timeline?

(That was sarcasm you knob)
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mood_lighting
>Noun
>mood lighting (uncountable)
> A dim level of illumination for romantic or similar effect.

TNG Technology:
Comfy, minimalist.

Discovery ""technology"":
Bright, gaudy, overly complex

Bullshit. Gene was all about the tech in Trek. Part of the philosophy was science and technology being the primary source for humanity being happy. He was all about advancing tech in the series. This is clearly obvious when you go from TOS, to the TOS movies and to the TNG era.The show is science fiction but it still tries to keep itself grounded in the progression of its technology. Simply saying "Fuck it. It's just a show" is a weak excuse.

These people do not understand their fanbase at all.

so fucking comfy. the early seasons have grown on me so much. its like a different show

> "poltard" here
>Watched Tos, Tng and ds9
>So far the pull of the show is a great lead captain with a great acting ability in different episodic situations that are interesting for multiple reasons
>STD is just Startrek slapped onto a walking dead tier written show with literal walking dead tier actors
>We know the season is going to be one big plot line and we will have no Holodeck episodes no fun adventures and no Amazing lead captain Lucios Malfoy might be an okay captain but even so they spent the first 2 episodes building up an arc and spocks adopted sister poorly from the actor choice to downright retcon of Tos Tng and DS9 anyone who is a true fan of those shows will not enjoy this show
Orville is pretty good tho