The truth about Discovery and the Prime universe.

[Dukhat]

All depends on the presentation. Matt Jeffries was a genius by realizing all the ships important stuff should be accessible from the inside. That concept is very realistic and futuristic. But heaven forbid a smooth hull ever be depicted to today's audience. "What, no greeblies? That doesn't look futuristic."

DSC's target audience isn't going to care about any of that. Just like they're not going to care about how the Klingons look. They're going to care about good storytelling and memorable characters.

 

[fireproof78]

No.

I expected it to look like the 60's, and be in black and white! Dang it!

Well, you can turn the color down in your TV

While it's true that we don't know what actual real future technology will look like in the 23rd century. We DO know what Star Trek's depiction of the 23rd century looks like. And things that depart from that look out of place and silly. Because that's the thing, what "looks" futuristic is purely subjective. We judge it based on what we were accustomed to. But there were cars made twenty or thirty years ago that still look futuristic. Even in some cases old technology can still "look" futuristic. So what is made in Star Trek Discovery today may look futuristic today. But that's purely subjective. In twenty years it will look like garbage and we'll all be complaining about how they had (blah blah) or how they had to carried around (blah blahs). So we can keep on playing this foolish game of keepie up, always trying to "look" futuristic but never succeeding becasue time moves on. Or we can just go ahead and embrace the fact that Star Trek is what it is and it has its own style that we don't need to re-imagine every generation.

Actually, that was part of GR's vision is someone would come along in the future and put their own imagining to the Star Trek world.

All depends on the presentation. Matt Jeffries was a genius by realizing all the ships important stuff should be accessible from the inside. That concept is very realistic and futuristic. But heaven forbid a smooth hull ever be depicted to today's audience. "What, no greeblies? That doesn't look futuristic."

Who is this "today's audience" and how did we get their consensus?

Now "The Expanse" looks silly. Their ships look like a hodge podge of Lego bricks. It's not as an amazing a show as people say it is. I watched all the first season and they could have compressed the thing into two episodes. Each episode was a direct continuation on the previous one. There were no individual stories. At least with Firefly, while having an overarching storyline, you also have individual stories that you can identify and remember.

That is actually quite common in contemporary storytelling, with "Daredevil" being one of the prime examples, especially the first season. Could it have been compressed in to two episodes? Yes, it could. But, it was unpacking a different world, one episode at a time. Which, in my opinion, was a good way to hook me in to watching it.

Mileage will vary.

As for the aesthetic, I would enjoy it if the Cage aesthetic came back but I don't see that happening. Secondly, things get retconned all the time in fictional worlds, and DSC will be no different.

Finally, if the characters and stories are good, then the trappings will fade away because they shouldn't be the focus of TV show.

 

[Mudd]

It makes perfect sense and is perfectly analogous. It is the established history of that mythical setting. In the context of Star Trek "The Cage" is a historical event.

You actually don't get the difference between real and imaginary, then?

"In a context that's entirely made up, this is a true fact."

They're changing all this stuff. They can do that, and there's no objective standard by which the new version is in error or misrepresenting real events. You can like it, or not. Other people may have other opinions. They will not be right or wrong, either.

 

[Brainsucker]

Now "The Expanse" looks silly. Their ships look like a hodge podge of Lego bricks. It's not as an amazing a show as people say it is. I watched all the first season and they could have compressed the thing into two episodes. Each episode was a direct continuation on the previous one. There were no individual stories. At least with Firefly, while having an overarching storyline, you also have individual stories that you can identify and remember.

It's up to you if you don't like it. I like "the Expanse", and can consider myself as a fan. The ship design that you call "a hodge podge" is actually my favorite model of star ship, as they look like a rocket. Their design is more believe-able (although still considered as imagination / fantasy) than other starship design from another show.

But I won't argue more about this, because it will only waste our precious time. If you don't like it, don't watch. You like Star Wars, I hate it. I like the Expanse, and you hate it. So let it be. I don't like Star Wars because I consider it too childish. But it's only me, and my own opinion, I won't bad mouth the franchise because of that.

 

[The Wormhole]

But if it lacks the substance, than it's just another sci-fi show;

When you get down to it Star Trek is just another sci-fi show. Granted, is more special to us the fans, but that doesn't mean it's really any different in the grand scheme of things than the Stargates, BSGs, Doctor Who and its spin-offs, Firefly, Babylon 5, The Expanse, Andromeda.

Okay, fine. Andromeda was crap.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

DSC's target audience isn't going to care about any of that. Just like they're not going to care about how the Klingons look. They're going to care about good storytelling and memorable characters.

With respect, who are you to speak for the "target audience"?

 

[Dukhat]

With respect, who are you to speak for the "target audience"?

With respect, because I think like a 2017 television producer, not an internet fanboy.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

With respect, because I think like a 2017 television producer, not an internet fanboy.

You're a major television producer are you?

I think like a lawyer because I am one, doesn't mean I'm right on everything and beyond question and that the opinions of the layman are instantly invalid.

 

[cultcross]

Silly comment. What looks "silly" is entirely in the mind's eye. If anything, looking at modern design aesthetics in general we have come around from the flashy designs of the 80s and 90s to a more simple, minimalist approach - and that now is "normal" to people. That's why, for instance, an iPod doesn't have looks of blinking, flashy lights like a TNG tricorder, but arguably more resembles a TOS piece of technology.

This whole argument of what looks silly is entirely based on what you, as an individual, find befitting of 2017. Not 2250 or whatever.

The realistic progression of technology just doesn't fit with the computers we saw in The Cage or indeed many other aspects of TOS tech. That's barely even an opinion, the show objectively failed to predict the speed of advancement in computer and communication technology, for example. Why would the computers on board an Interstellar starship in the 23rd century look and sound like computers from the 60s? I'm sure that the TruFans cannot come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons to satisfy themselves, but someone switching on a show set in the distant future and seeing a whirring clicking computer controlled by toggle switches producing paper print outs and people talking about 'tapes' and 'circuits' is going to have a pretty strong 'what the fuck?' reaction. The world didn't progress like they thought it would in the 60s when they imagined Star Trek the first time around. So you update the setting to fit what we now expect the future to be. It's only logical. We'll be wrong too, and if they're still making Star Trek in another fifty years I fully expect them to update it again. The sixties show is still there for us to enjoy, but there's no reason to expect a show made fifty years later to adhere to it anymore than "Gotham" should recreate the aesthetic of the 60s Batman.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

The realistic progression of technology just doesn't fit with the computers we saw in The Cage or indeed many other aspects of TOS tech. That's barely even an opinion, the show objectively failed to predict the speed of advancement in computer and communication technology, for example. Why would the computers on board an Interstellar starship in the 23rd century look and sound like computers from the 60s? I'm sure that the TruFans cannot come up with all sorts of convoluted reasons to satisfy themselves, but someone switching on a show set in the distant future and seeing a whirring clicking computer controlled by toggle switches producing paper print outs and people talking about 'tapes' and 'circuits' is going to have a pretty strong 'what the fuck?' reaction. The world didn't progress like they thought it would in the 60s when they imagined Star Trek the first time around. So you update the setting to fit what we now expect the future to be. It's only logical. We'll be wrong too, and if they're still making Star Trek in another fifty years I fully expect them to update it again. The sixties show is still there for us to enjoy, but there's no reason to expect a show made fifty years later to adhere to it anymore than "Gotham" should recreate the aesthetic of the 60s Batman.

There is plenty of reason when you set it before that time and state that it is in the same continuity.

If they went to progress the look they can either reboot the whole thing or simply make a show set after Voyager. I think this is the argument that people are choosing not to address. Why drop the idea into the public sphere of prime universe into the public sphere, let it germinate and then produce something that doesn't really adhere to it, thus alienating some of the fans like me, who weren't huge fans of JJ Trek and wanted a return to the prime universe (and obviously were the people they were trying to win back on side)? Why not just be honest and say "we're just going for our own out of continuity interpretation"? That's the point I'm making. There was no reason to drop the prime universe into the discussion and let the idea fester clarified if that's not what they're doing in terms of the world building.

 

[cultcross]

As is being discussed in this and other threads, there was no promise made of sticking to original continuity, only that they'd thought about whether to set it concurrent with the JJ movies and decided not to. Therefore the series is "prime" in the sense that it isn't "Kelvin" universe. In the same speech it was made very very clear that they were changing and updating the look.

 

[Smoked Salmon]

As is being discussed in other threads, there was no promise made of sticking to original continuity, only that they'd thought about whether to set it concurrent with the JJ movies and decided not to. Therefore the series is "prime" in the sense that it isn't "Kelvin" universe. In the same speech it was made very very clear that they were changing and updating the look.

Fuller stated explicitly at Comic Con that it would be designed to fit into the prime universe...and that has never been retracted - therefore the original continuity IS relevant. I don't care a crap what has been "explained" by fans on a fan forum to be honest. All the press reported it as being prime universe after Fuller's remarks. If that wasn't true then Fuller or someone else should've at least clarified that instead of letting it fester in order to put expectations in check. Why did they not do this? That's what I asked you.

 

[cultcross]

It's post one of this thread.

We can redefine the visual style. We get to play with all of the iconography of those ships and that universe. Since we are doing this series in 2016, and all of the other series have been produced [at a time that] isn’t as sophisticated as we are now with what we can do production-wise, we’re going to be reestablishing an entire look for the series — not only for the series, but for what we wanted to accomplish with Star Trek beyond this series."

Couldn't really be more explicit than that. "Restablishing an entire look".

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

The mid-23rd Century of the 1960s and 1970s simply can not be the mid-23rd Century of the 2010s and 2020s. I mean, I've loved Star Trek for over 35 years now. But so much has changed in the past fifty years that much of what was seen as futuristic in The Original Series is antiquated now, both socio-politically and technologically. If CBS strictly adhered to the canon and aesthetics of The Original Series in 2020, people in their teens, 20s, and 30s wouldn't give the show a second look and the show absolutely needs people in their teens, 20s, and 30s to watch for it to thrive.

Exactly. Our vision of the future has changed, and if Star Trek doesn't change with it, it doesn't have a prayer.

Okay, I agree with this sentiment mostly - I'm a trained scientist - Star Trek probably played some part in inspiring my love of the natural sciences - I've always thought a full reboot with current physics and biology would be amazing - nanotechnology everywhere - hard astrophysics employed in every episode to show the wonder of the cosmos. Trek was always surprisingly keen on this.

But I must caution - social and political consensus may change but that does not necessarily mean they change for the better - there are some things we accept now that would not have been acceptable in eras past, and maybe still shouldn't be.

Some of the appeal of Trek is its humanism, futurism and empiricism - and I'm not sure for example that it should bend to current notions of what is politically or socially possible. This will inevitably come back to the TNG vs DS9 argument, but I'm not arguing against conflict, drama or human corruption, just cautioning that what might seem self evident today, will change again, and that it's thus perhaps better to stick to your guns, as George Lucas stuck to his albeit different, more religious, ideals, rather than trying to please.

 

[cultcross]

what might seem self evident today, will change again,

Yes it will, and that generation can make their own Star Trek based on their optimistic future. That's the beauty of it. Star Trek is a dream of the future, our future, and that dream changes over time as we realign our priorities and technology's role in our lives changes. We've seen the late 60s dream, the late 80s dream, and now we will get to see that dream from our perspective in the late 2010s. So much has changed even since the TNG/Berman era began, and I'm excited to see Star Trek catch up.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Agreed @cultcross - I would just hate to see Trek ever become a platform for cynicism as many dramas are. I don't think Discovery will be, so I'm happy about that.

 

[cultcross]

Agreed @cultcross - I would just hate to see Trek ever become a platform for cynicism as many dramas are. I don't think Discovery will be, so I'm happy about that.

I think we'll see the opposite based on what the showrunners have been talking about. One of the (many) things that disappointed me about Enterprise was the decision to introduce anti Vulcan racism among the main characters and present those views sympathetically. Fine, it's their dramatic choice, but that's not very Trek to me. I don't anticipate the same issues with Discovery, looking at what's been said about it, especially from Fuller. If anything, the danger will be the opposite - blandness from "Genes vision (tm)" being too thickly applied.

 

[a thousand-yard stare]

I think we'll see the opposite based on what the showrunners have been talking about. One of the (many) things that disappointed me about Enterprise was the decision to introduce anti Vulcan racism among the main characters and present those views sympathetically. Fine, it's their dramatic choice, but that's not very Trek to me. I don't anticipate the same issues with Discovery, looking at what's been said about it, especially from Fuller. If anything, the danger will be the opposite - blandness from "Genes vision (tm)" being too thickly applied.

Interesting.
I always thought the 'anti-Vulcan sentiments' expressed in 'Enterprise' stemmed from the 'anti-human' stance of a Romulan infiltrated Vulcan High Command.
I saw the Humans being treated as if they were a 'primitive people'; much more 'childlike, emotional and violent'.
That seemed to be the line expressed by the Vulcan 'missionaries'.
After 21 seasons of the 24th century where the Human-dominated Starfleet was undertaking missionary work it must be a wrench to see the boot on the other foot...

 

[LtChange]

I didn't like the Vulcans at the beginning of Enterprise but after their story culminating in Season 4 it has grown on me.

 

[Mudd]

It's post one of this thread.



Couldn't really be more explicit than that. "Restablishing an entire look".

Exactly so.

The producer told us they would be redesigning the show. People ignored that and repeated what they wanted to believe the producer said. This is not the producer's fault.