I don't think Discovery had to copy the aesthetics of TOS and they could have done something that looked a little newer in many respects - but I agree with you that the look of the show is probably the number one thing that has kept a lot of people from being able to give the show a chance. That doesn't mean they all would have liked it any better once they gave it a chance, by the way - but likely some would.Makeshift Python wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 9:16 pm I genuinely believe if DISCO had actually stuck to the aesthetics of TOS, not only would it have been a less controversial show among fandom, it would have been given a pass for simply adhering to the old look, perhaps even COMMENDED for doing that. But because the makers had the gall to “update” the look of the universe, that was perceived by fans as a slight against the original series, it told them “your previous TOS wasn’t good enough”, and from that point on they viewed any Kurtzman production in bad faith because they did the unforgivable. That’s not how I perceive it, but I’ve seen a lot take it that way. Especially given how Star Wars in contrast actually replicated the 70s aesthetics so faithfully that you have loads of fans who commend ROGUE ONE for being accurate on that front, and Trek fans are absolutely jealous that the other big space franchise is getting away with it.
I think it's always been a caricature of fans of any property - including Star Trek - to paint them as unreasonably opposed to allowing new real world cinema technology to update the look of classic franchises. I think the reality is that almost all fans will accept and even embrace these kinds of improvements as long as they're clearly matters of improved real world technology rather than an anachronistic reimagining of the property's fictional technology.
Enterprise is the prime example of this. It's extremely obvious that the technology as presented there looks more refined and polished than the technology that is seen on TOS and is supposed to take place much later - but it also looks like the technology in Enterprise intended to predate the tech of TOS and it's just that they had better tools for making the show ins the 2000s than in the 1960s. You don't watch Enterprise and say, "what the heck? Those computer panels look about 100 years more advanced than in TOS." Instead, you watch it and say, "it's obvious that Enterprise was made a few decades after TOS, but you can tell how this is supposed to be earlier tech that is just made in more modern times."
In other words, I think the vast majority of fans will accept a healthy degree of "it's only a TV show and we made this with better cinema tech than the old one so although we tried to respect the aesthetic or the original it looks a little different." What many won't accept is, "we made this with better cinema tech than the old one so we totally ignored everything about the original and it wound up looking like something from 600 years after the original."
It's like the difference between making a western in the 60s vs. today. Maybe in the 60s the gunfights look pretty wooden and when someone gets shot with an arrow you can tell the actor just sortof put the arrow between his arm and his chest. Remaking it today, the gunfights would be well choreographed and the guy getting shot was done with CGI and looks realistic - but you didn't suddenly give the bandits AK-47s. That's sortof how Discovery feels and that's what put a lot people off from even being able to consider the plot or characters.
