Production Design and "worldbuilding"

[MadAmosMalone]

Over on the thread for Season 2 of The Expanse, Nessus posted this reply to a question I had. I was quite impressed and thought it worthy of a separate topic. Production design is the building of the "world" that the story and its characters inhabit. I think it's an important "signature" for anything in a visual medium.

Also agree, though I would like to know more about what you mean by unintentionally ironic industrial designs. The show is basically a more or less "traditional" space opera but they've gone out of their way to try and depict space travel more realistically than any other show that has come before. I really think this is the sci-fi show I've been waiting for since B5 went off the air.

Apologies for taking so log to respond. Real life got busy for a bit.

Anyway, as a (very amateur) artist, with a life-long interest in science-fiction and to a lesser degree fantasy, I've put a disproportionate amount of thought over time into the conceptual back-end of sci-fi visual design. Please forgive me if this gets long winded. As I say, this represents years of mental chewing.

One of the things I've noticed is that the thing that most effects the "look" of technology is not the technological principles of the thing itself, but more the technology used to manufacture it, particularly to laymen who may not understand either tech. For example: to a lay viewer, the only major intrinsic technological difference between a modern luxury yacht and a 17th century one is the lack of sails in the former. However the two still look vastly different due to the fact that the modern one was obviously built with materials and methods that allow for shapes and surfaces that probably could have been abstractly drawn in the 17th century, but not engineered or built (or if so, could only be approximated at prohibitive expense).

This is, of course, overlooking the evolution in aesthetic styles and preferences, but we're concerned with technology for this discussion.

Also there are many elements of shape that are dictated by evolving understanding of technical/scientific knowledge, and thus could not be anticipated as technical advancement, but to an artist/audience thinking/understanding these simply in terms of "cool shapes", this is a wash. A lot of sci-fi art revolves around "cool shapes" that are meant to represent this sort of technical evolution, with it being implicit that truly anticipating such is impossible.

As time marches on, manufacturing advances as well as any other part of technology. Forms that were too complex or expensive to make become feasible, then commonplace. You can see this in everything, from airplanes to kitchen appliances. You can also see it by looking at it backward: by looking at modern "steampunk" and "dieselpunk" artistic renditions of modern technologies, and by looking at actual period sci-fi art that anticipates modern (or still future) technologies with what now looks like whimsically outdated construction.

"Hard sci-fi" in particular tends to very conservative in its estimates. Too conservative, often, to the point where the future is essentially populated by new applications (or lateral applications) of very modern technology. Sometimes "cutting edge" modern, but yesterday's cutting edge is today's old, and today's cutting edge is yesterdays unthinkable/implausible, so today's cutting edge isn't actually futuristic. In visual arts, this takes the form of technology that does futuristic things, but stylistically looks like something that could have came off a modern assembly line, using modern materials and techniques. This is where stuff like James Cameron films and The Expanse reside, stylistically. To the general public, this visual style is the sole marker of what makes something "realistic" ( to a large amount of people, the only difference between a smart phone and something out of Harry Potter is that one is real and the other isn't, so to these people "realism" is ENTIRELY cosmetic), and therefore is the sole definition of "hard sci-fi". You end up with a lot of visual media sci-fi that is actually completely space-opera, but gets credited as "realistic" just because it uses this visual style in a purely cosmetic way.

Visual hard S-F's definition of "realism" unconsciously positions "realistic" and "futuristic" in contradiction to each other, causing the style to bottom out in an "always preparing for the last war instead of the next one" paradox.

Spacecraft in particular have an added layer of irony, in that their reference for "hardness" tends to be NASA hardware, which is essentially built using prototyping methods rather than mass manufacturing methods. Most IRL space hardware looks more like one-off proof-of-concept lab builds than full production technology to begin with, so the ironic not-futurism of emulating that look goes an extra layer deep. Check out the difference between modern a NASA cockpit (wait... are there any?) and a Space-X cockpit, and realize that the Space-X stuff is only prototype-level too, but is being designed from a prospective full consumer product standpoint.

BUT WAIT: that's not the best part. Manufacturing technology is currently rolling up toward a kind of second industrial revolution with the rise and expansion of 3D-printing and other CNC technologies. We're starting to see the first trickles of what 50 years from now will be factories that change tooling simply by swapping out a CAD file, and repair shops that print replacement parts on site rather than having them shipped from a factory. A future in which the economy of off-the-shelf engineering will eventually be reversed in many applications. That means organically complex shapes that are currently impossible and/or prohibitive to manufacture, combined with an increase in bespoke components designed and built for a specific role in a specific design.

BUT WAIT AGAIN: that's STILL not the best part! You know about computer-aided engineering software that lets you do physical testing and prototype iteration entirely in the computer, and how that's all industry standard tech now? Well, the next level in that tech tree is coming: design software that "creatively" extrapolates the most optimal design for a given set of parameters all by itself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5JLiv2bPXA

Pretty huge all by itself, but just imagine what people could (and will) do applying that in nested, recursive workflow trees.

So you've got an upcoming new class of engineering software that will destroy modified primitive solid derived forms in direct proportion to our ability to manufacture complex shapes... combined with rising classes of fabrication technologies to manufacture said shapes. Even with a conservative estimate of theses technologies' impact, the actual hardware of a full century from now is probably gonna look way more bio-mechanoid (for lack of a better term) than anything modern "hard S-F" visual arts/media is comfortable with.

Some things will be consistent: rooms, furniture, and containers will still favor right angles because they tessellate most efficiently. In some cases, new technologies will actually lead to right angles being more common as limitations that preclude right angles are reduced. Like the interiors of ships (ocean or space), for example (which means the sci-fi trope of hex or octagonal halls and doors is probably also ironic). But a lot of stuff is going to get a lot more organic and and fluidly integrated in terms of shape and parts breakdown, because the design and manufacturing barriers that have always made that impractical/impossible are being disassembled right now.

To be honest, a lot of the visual design in The Expanse is pretty boxy and primitive even by modern hard S-F standards. I love the amount of production value on display, but to me it overshoots even the IMO inaccurate standards of modern visual hard Sci-Fi, and lands more or less in "future Steampunk" territory. It's like Firefly without the overt cowboy stuff.

[MadAmosMalone]

I wanted to get that quote in to establish the discussion so, hopefully, others will chime in with ideas on this. Meanwhile I wanted to ask if there were movies or shows that you thought "got it right" particularly well or goofed in an honest effort?

[Fixer]

Thanks for that. Sadly I have to avoid the Expanse thread as Season 2 isn't out for streaming in the UK yet and I'm avoiding any and all spoilers

I'd say that the Enterprise NCC-1701 D actually has a great futuristic aesthetic to it. Touch screen glass controls monitors, sleek curves, a comfortable lounge like design. Compare to the cutting edge Amiga 500 released in the same year TNG season 1 was released.


Things like PADD's and the UI's now look dated, but only because 25 years after the show came out such things became common use consumer goods.

[Admiral X]

^In part because they were inspired by them, I might add. Personally I don't care for touch screens because of how easily they smudge, and because the keyboard takes up a portion of the screen when in use.

[The Romulan Republic]

Certainly, technology will allow new designs, but which of the numerous possible athstetics you actually get will depend heavily on both culture and function. So while technology is definitely a factor, I'd think that perhaps more pertinent questions to narrow down the visual style you want are "What function does it serve" and "what sort of culture designed it".

Look at Star Wars-

The warships of the Galactic Empire are, in some senses at least, more "advanced" than the sleek Naboo yachts of the Prequels. Certainly larger, more powerful, and more complex machines, and of a later and more militarized era. And yet, they tend toward angular shapes and drab colouring. They're utilitarian vessels, and to the extent that appearance is a factor, they are designed to intimidate.

The Naboo yacht, in contrast, is a luxury craft from a more peaceful culture which likely invests more in beauty and peacetime pursuits, and is in any case intended for a very different role from an ISD or a Death Star.

A similar contrast can be found between, say Federation ships and Klingon or (especially) Borg ships in Star Trek.

[MadAmosMalone]

I seem to recall reading once in an Arthur C. Clarke book that smooth control surfaces were fine for "unimportant" systems like informational displays or food service but that designers retained using switches and toggles and other more traditional apparatus for systems such as powerplants and weapons because there was something satisfying about hearing or feeling a tangible "click" when operating those. I forget exactly how he worded it but it made sense that people wouldn't want to set off a weapon system by accidentally brushing it with their hand.

Form should follow function. Particularly when it comes to electronics, most science fiction tries to extrapolate advances in miniaturization and capability from current trends but neglects to take into consideration how electronic equipment needs to be "hardened" for the environment of space. So maybe the tech of the future might not be too different from "less advanced" depictions of the past.

[Karha of Honor]

Certainly, technology will allow new designs, but which of the numerous possible athstetics you actually get will depend heavily on both culture and function. So while technology is definitely a factor, I'd think that perhaps more pertinent questions to narrow down the visual style you want are "What function does it serve" and "what sort of culture designed it".

Look at Star Wars-

The warships of the Galactic Empire are, in some senses at least, more "advanced" than the sleek Naboo yachts of the Prequels. Certainly larger, more powerful, and more complex machines, and of a later and more militarized era. And yet, they tend toward angular shapes and drab colouring. They're utilitarian vessels, and to the extent that appearance is a factor, they are designed to intimidate.

The Naboo yacht, in contrast, is a luxury craft from a more peaceful culture which likely invests more in beauty and peacetime pursuits, and is in any case intended for a very different role from an ISD or a Death Star.

A similar contrast can be found between, say Federation ships and Klingon or (especially) Borg ships in Star Trek.

Their fighters look like Ferrari designed them.

[Nessus]

Certainly, technology will allow new designs, but which of the numerous possible athstetics you actually get will depend heavily on both culture and function. So while technology is definitely a factor, I'd think that perhaps more pertinent questions to narrow down the visual style you want are "What function does it serve" and "what sort of culture designed it".

Look at Star Wars-

The warships of the Galactic Empire are, in some senses at least, more "advanced" than the sleek Naboo yachts of the Prequels. Certainly larger, more powerful, and more complex machines, and of a later and more militarized era. And yet, they tend toward angular shapes and drab colouring. They're utilitarian vessels, and to the extent that appearance is a factor, they are designed to intimidate.

The Naboo yacht, in contrast, is a luxury craft from a more peaceful culture which likely invests more in beauty and peacetime pursuits, and is in any case intended for a very different role from an ISD or a Death Star.

A similar contrast can be found between, say Federation ships and Klingon or (especially) Borg ships in Star Trek.

A lot of that (in a fictional context) is actually just Pavlovian association. We think Star Destroyers look "utilitarian" because modern (and past) utilitarian designs are marked by these sort of boxy, planar forms.

The reason we associate planar shapes and primitive solids with "utilitarian" is because IRL they are (and for most of history have been) the cheapest and simplest to manufacture, not always because they are most optimal in use*. If you break that economy, a lot changes.

The gains in efficiency and performance that can be had by optimizing shapes is actually pretty huge. Don't forget that this is already happening. The aircraft industry is the spearhead. GE is already using metal printing to manufacture fuel injectors because it enables them to increase engine efficiency and reduce weight, and many other companies are R&Ding much bigger/broader uses. Several aircraft companies have for years now been moving to replace sheet metal aircraft skins and frames with molded composites, among the benefits of which is the ability to reduce panel count (especially on complex compound curves), which means the frame they attach to can be even lighter.

You also have some interesting work being done in architecture, with robots printing full scale structures in steel and concrete in-situ. This stuff is much more experimental, but the same tools being played with here can be reapplied to/redeveloped for other fields even if it proves impractical for large structures (for the time being).

The crossover with robotics in general, both in how robots are used, and how robots are designed and manufactured, is incredibly interesting. That's another field where the high-end stuff being done right now is pretty fraught with clear potential in a lot of walks of life. And all these technologies are going to feed and advance each other rather than advancing separately.

This only gets bigger when you consider the impact of the design/engineering software I mentioned. The efficiency and performance gains from that are going to be ENORMOUS, like orders of magnitude, and they're going to need manufacturing methods like the above to realize, so that's going to accelerate demand for those manufacturing methods.

Once the Aircraft industry has made enough ground, the technologies/methods will move out into the automotive industry, and further from there. Every new industry that adds itself to the snowball makes it cheaper and easier for the next one, 'till eventually there'll be coffee makers at your local big box store that use parts made these ways. These methods will always come with a greater cost than making sheet metal boxes and the like, but if the gains are high enough proportionally (and they are), they still become more economical in the overview, especially once economy of scale is in place.

Right now we're in the very beginning, but the demand is most definitely there. It's just waiting for the technology to develop and mature more. Which it is: you should look at videos of 3-d printing industry trade shows: there's stuff being done on the high-end proprietary level right now that'd make Tony Stark jealous.

This is a sea change in the making, and it's no surprise that people, even sci-fi fans, are having a hard time anticipating or embracing it even as they're looking at it.

*I feel I established in my initial post that there are exceptions, like rectangles generally always being optimal for rooms and containers, and I'd go further to say that floors, tabletops, and anything meant to rest on such will strongly favor flatness no matter what. In fact, I tend to judge the floors in sci-fi facilities and ships rather harshly by what I call the "hand truck test". Imagine a worker trying to wheel a cart full of tools or a hand truck stacked with heavy containers over it. If it looks like it would be a PITA, with the wheels getting constantly caught or diverted by raised or recessed details, the design fails. A secondary test is "if i drop a tool or a part, will I be able to easily retrieve it, or will it disappear through gaps in the floor?". A lot of stuff in TV and movie environment passes this (probably because the IRL film crew needs it as much as a fictional crew would), but a lot of video game and concept art designs crash and burn horribly.

However I'd also like to reinforce that the ideas I was talking about apply only to art or shows/movies that are trying to go for "hard S-F" realism. Space opera and outright space fantasy (such as Star Trek, Star Wars, Farscape, 40K, etc.) are openly not so concerned with that, so it's perfectly fine and legit if they do whatever looks cool without regard to realism.

[Nessus]

I seem to recall reading once in an Arthur C. Clarke book that smooth control surfaces were fine for "unimportant" systems like informational displays or food service but that designers retained using switches and toggles and other more traditional apparatus for systems such as powerplants and weapons because there was something satisfying about hearing or feeling a tangible "click" when operating those. I forget exactly how he worded it but it made sense that people wouldn't want to set off a weapon system by accidentally brushing it with their hand.

Form should follow function. Particularly when it comes to electronics, most science fiction tries to extrapolate advances in miniaturization and capability from current trends but neglects to take into consideration how electronic equipment needs to be "hardened" for the environment of space. So maybe the tech of the future might not be too different from "less advanced" depictions of the past.

When it comes to controls, the "accidental bump" thing is probably the prime consideration. The tactile feel of it is probably not a big focus, beyond that need to provide certainty (rather than comfort), but even so, there are several different haptic feedback technologies being developed to solve that problem anyway. Probably within 20 years commercial touchscreens will have a full tactile component to their experience. Like, creepily full, if the descriptions of current R&D models are to be believed.

There are actually a lot of ways to handle the "accidental bump" scenario with touch screens, both with existing tech, and easily hypothesized extensions of existing tech. The bigger issue, I feel, is controls that won't just completely stop existing if something goes squiffy with the power or the computer system. I cringe every time a "manual override" gets disabled along with the electrical/computer system on Star Trek.

I think almost full touchscreen consoles/controls are realistic for a future that's further out, but I couldn't guess how far. They certainly still need a lot more problem solving and hardening before they're ready in their more modern form.

I'm not familiar with the methods needed/used to harden electronics against vacuum or radiation, and will have to look that up.