Here it is, my opinion and perspective about why Ridley Chose a more high tech future as opposed to a low tech one. Quite frankly, looking at where we are right now in 2012 with our iPads and our phones and 3D, etc.... I believe if the larger audience were to walk in to the theater and see a decidedly low tech future I don't think it would translate as well. For the core fans I think we'd be like "kool" but because of where our collective technology is at the moment, the future of the 1970s isn't as plausible as the future of 2012....I would bet that it would even seem a bit hokey. When I watch ALIEN now, and see the crew pushing actual buttons and knowing that we're so far beyond that as a world culture, I think Ridley mad the right choice. I don't think it's about pandering to a specific tech demographic as it was just freshening up the brand. With newer tech there's more room to tell a better story. That's all I have the moment, so shoot me.
but basically this is what ive been saying all along and youve been disagreeing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but it is a certain demographic, its 18 to 30s which for the most part will be gamers and tech heads.
hes made it modern tech to appeal to a modern audience, he doesnt have a great deal of choice in it and i understand it, all ive said is that it doesnt match up. hmm, youve lost me now...
I don't remember people complaining when Robert Wise and the art and production designers updated the Enterprise, from the design aesthetic of what the "future" might look like to people living in the mid 60s to what the "future" might look like for people living at the end of the 70s.I think the griping stems from the inconsistency of Scott's reverse engineering of ALIEN's aesthetic. For example, the interiors of the ship and the screen panels are pretty damn consistent with ALIEN--the new screens may now be flat, but they have the same lo-fi look to them. It's great. And then the cliche hologram stuff comes in... throwing a wrench into an otherwise excellent keeping of continuity.
The problems occur when you go in the other direction. Kubrick was a brilliant visionary, and simply nailed the "future-tech" that is presented in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Not only did he foresee the use of 3-D computer graphics (used in the various spacecrafts cockpits for navigation and docking), but they friggin' had flat screen displays. Heck, Poole and Bowman had iPad like devices on the Discovery. Yet, for some incomprehensible reason, in "2010: The Year We Make Contact", they have regressed to using old CRT monitors. I always hated that.Ugh, that movie. One of the worst sequels ever. Even worse because the book was a very good, entertaining read.
this, ive never really been into star trek tbh, but i did like the new one.
but agree with what cvalda is saying, its more to do with him fitting it in an existing timeline and reverse engineering, not rebooting which is different.