Would you accept a TOS-era spinoff with updated visuals, but otherwise kept established continunity?
- Thread starter Ralphis
- Start date
And the Mon Calimari still looked like Mon Calimari
I'm a fan of Trek since the early 70s. I accepted TMP and TNG era without hesitation. I dislike NuTrek because I think it's a parody of TOS (a good parody, but still a parody). I disliked the changes in appearance in NuTrek because, after nearly 40 y ears, I've seen you can update the look without wholesale changes.
I agree with the above statement. Rogue One is a great example of a movie that looks state of the art while still looking like it fits aesthetically with what came before.
I'm a fan of Trek since the early 70s. I accepted TMP and TNG era without hesitation. I dislike NuTrek because I think it's a parody of TOS (a good parody, but still a parody). I disliked the changes in appearance in NuTrek because, after nearly 40 y ears, I've seen you can update the look without wholesale changes.
I agree with the above statement. Rogue One is a great example of a movie that looks state of the art while still looking like it fits aesthetically with what came before.
And yet Vader's mask and suit, arguably the 'face' of the franchise, had a makeover. Even though he really didn't have the In-universe time between the end of R1 and beginning of iV to account for the change.
We shall hold it against the movie forever. Unlike the original trilogy where, even though Vader's look also changed in every movie,
And oh Lordy, am I holding up Tarkin up as a reason why I don't see 'faithfulness' as an inherent virtue. It was an interesting experiment, but oh God get it off, get it off, getitoff!
Last edited:
Vader's cape changed within the same movie.
Cape attached by chain: http://caps.pictures/197/7-starwars4/full/star-wars4-movie-screencaps.com-328.jpg
Cape integrated into armor: http://caps.pictures/197/7-starwars4/full/star-wars4-movie-screencaps.com-5948.jpg
Apparently he has more than one suit laying around.
Come on, my wife, a casual viewer, would never notice the difference in Vader's appearance. Yet she'd definitely notice the difference between, oh, say, TOS Klingon and TNG Klingon or TOS Enterprise and NuEnterprise. Apples and oranges.
And yet Vader's mask and suit, arguably the 'face' of the franchise, had a makeover. Even though he really didn't have the In-universe time between the end of R1 and beginning of iV to account for the change.
We shall hold it against the movie forever. Unlike the original trilogy where, even though Vader's look also changed in every movie,nostalgia means I care lessthey 'left more room' for me to head-canon an excuse.
If you look carefully, the helmet has the red eyes, keeping it consistent with the original film.
I thought it was okay. I had assumed that Tarkin would just be a few second cameo, so I was happily surprised that he had a substantial role.
First of, I will watch and appreciate Discovery whether or not it adheres to canon or visual continuity providing it has well acted and executed interesting stories with trekky themes.
But.
I really have strong feelings about how I'd prefer a series set in that era to look, and I will annoy you all by endlessly whining about it if it doesn't meet my expectations. Visuals are important to me, I'm a very visual person. They're not the most important thing about a show, but they're still important.
Rogue One has been brought up as a good example of using old style in a state of the art film (I loved it!) Now, I understand that you cannot do the exact same thing with TOS look, it has to be updated a bit more. However, it should have the same overall design aesthetic. Sure, update the tech, add details, change little things, but do not entirely jettison the style. Make it intentionally retrofuturistic. I have said this this exact same thing about seven thousand times in the Discovery section of the forums, so I don't know why I keep repeating it. No one ever seems to get what I mean anyway. Oh well, seemed like an appropriate thread to gab about this again...
But.
I really have strong feelings about how I'd prefer a series set in that era to look, and I will annoy you all by endlessly whining about it if it doesn't meet my expectations. Visuals are important to me, I'm a very visual person. They're not the most important thing about a show, but they're still important.
Rogue One has been brought up as a good example of using old style in a state of the art film (I loved it!) Now, I understand that you cannot do the exact same thing with TOS look, it has to be updated a bit more. However, it should have the same overall design aesthetic. Sure, update the tech, add details, change little things, but do not entirely jettison the style. Make it intentionally retrofuturistic. I have said this this exact same thing about seven thousand times in the Discovery section of the forums, so I don't know why I keep repeating it. No one ever seems to get what I mean anyway. Oh well, seemed like an appropriate thread to gab about this again...
Yes they were, but no it wasn't.
Well, not unless people are also allowed the argument 'The New Klingons have ridges, that means they're consistent.'
The question would be, would she care that they're different? And I have my doubts that she'd really notice the difference between the TMP-STID era Klingons (which also changed the make-up design semi-frequently), and the proposed new ones. Esp. if they end up with hair.
And besides the upgrade In effects, would she notice the difference between say...the TMP Enterprise and the Nu-Trek one? Without her husband's prompting?
I am a part of the Star Wars fandom. Believe you me, threads like this do exist for R1. Like with Trek, for some the tiny changes (purely cosmetic or otherwise) were 'too much.' Just like it was 'too much' for some people, when the cartoons, the prequels, the games, etc, changed anything.
So...should they not take the R1 approach again, just because some people didn't like it?
Last edited:
I think Trek does work best as a TV show. Mostly because that's what it was created to be.
I would disagree that they were "as shallow and 'popcorn' as you can get". And I'd ask for something to back up such a statement. For my money the opening of ST'09 is one of the most poignant in all of Trek. All three films touch on issues that are very much in the news. Much as TOS did.
I think anyone who thinks the films are simply shallow action films needs to check their depth perception
They should also remember that Star Trek (TOS) was an action-adventure show and it wasn't ashamed to admit it. While I wouldn't call it shallow, it didn't exactly spend a lot of time in the deep end either. It touched on serious topics, but not in a way that one would call deep. I love the show, it's my all time favorite, but I have no illusions about was it was.
Okay, it has been some time since I saw the movie, and I didn't notice any major differences. We do know that Vader has used different helmets over the years, so he could've replaced it between the movies. (Watch Star Wars: Rebels sometime; Vader has a very different helmet in that one.)
Sure he could. In the...hour or so between them. For no reason at all.
Although i am admittedly amused by the thought of Anakin always carrying around a bunch of helmets (even into combat), just in case he gets bored with the one he's wearing.
I am discussing the teensey-tiny, super-pedantic changes to Darth Vaders helmet.
Do you really think the sort of person who does that for fun, is also the sort of person who won't have seen Rebels?
Last edited:
It is completely absurd compare the tiny unnoticeable changes like that to something like completely redesigning Enterprise for 09.
(I absolutely have no idea what's the deal with Vader's helmet is. Has looked exactly the same to me in all the live action SW films. This is probably the same level of nitpicking than thinking that Constellation in 'Doomsday's Machine' was not a Connie because they used AMT model kit for it, and it has some tiny unnoticeable differences to the big studio Connie model.)
I think a good example of effect update while maintaining the look is D7 to K'tinga update. Now I know that most people consider them to be different classes, but it's basically the same ship. The shape is same, it has all the same parts in same places, it just has more detail. If they filmed K'tinga model and you were watching it from the sort of TV set they had when TOS aired, you probably couldn't notice any difference (This is one reason why TOS props have so little details, they would have been wasted on low quality TVs of the day. Why spend money making something no one notices anyway?)
(I absolutely have no idea what's the deal with Vader's helmet is. Has looked exactly the same to me in all the live action SW films. This is probably the same level of nitpicking than thinking that Constellation in 'Doomsday's Machine' was not a Connie because they used AMT model kit for it, and it has some tiny unnoticeable differences to the big studio Connie model.)
I think a good example of effect update while maintaining the look is D7 to K'tinga update. Now I know that most people consider them to be different classes, but it's basically the same ship. The shape is same, it has all the same parts in same places, it just has more detail. If they filmed K'tinga model and you were watching it from the sort of TV set they had when TOS aired, you probably couldn't notice any difference (This is one reason why TOS props have so little details, they would have been wasted on low quality TVs of the day. Why spend money making something no one notices anyway?)
Last edited:
You didn't notice that a large part of Vader's face, one of the most famous images in Western Pop-culture, changed colour between films...
... but you find it inconceivable that for many, a grey dish with nacelles looks a lot like every other grey dish with nacelles? (With exception for the ones that were flipped upside down, of course.)
Srsly?
Last edited:
I'm happy to headcanon/retcon the Constellation being a different class, but not because of the AMT model. We've had some nice discussions here about the possibility that it's a different class based upon Kirk not knowing exactly where auxiliary control was located. Plus, that would explain the lower registry number. I've retconned it to be a Bonaventure Class.
Yes. It's these minor nitpicky differences that I roll my eyes at. Vader's helmet was different? I didn't notice! Bet my wife didn't either. She did notice the difference in the original Enterprise and the Abramsprise. Will a casual viewer recognize the difference if the TNG Klingons and DISC Klingons are side by side? Well, that depends if that picture was indeed Klingons. I doubt my wife would tell a difference in side by side between a TMP vs TNG Klingon. Definitely not between TSFS and TNG Klingon.
That's pretty much me, I confess. I'm not super into the hardware or ship porn. I see plenty of discussions comparing this or that version of the Enterprise, and picking apart the differences in great detail, but I don't really see it. If it's got a saucer and a couple of nacelles . . . it's the Enterprise to me.
Now that you mention it, I think I noticed it at some point and then promptly forgot it. The eye lenses were always pretty dark, so one could chalk up any slight difference in hue to the lightning. In any case, any changes to Vader's helm are on the level of the differences between various filming models used to represent the exact same ship in Star Trek shows, sometimes even within single episode.
Yeah, not the same thing not even close. It would be same if they had replaced Vader's helm with something like this:
Or maybe with JJ-Prise this is more appropriate comparison due the upscaling:
Yeah, not the same thing not even close. It would be same if they had replaced Vader's helm with something like this:
Once again, people seem to ignore the huge differences in the type of story being told. One is a continuation of a family story, the other is a stealth-reboot.
There is a difference between taking something that is well known and updating it verses making it looks sort of the same, but "new and improved". The Rogue One example is the former will the 2009 Star Trek film is the later. I can also give this set of examples within a single franchise.
Space Battleship Yamato. The animated series from 1974 to 1983 had an evolving style as both the art styles improved and they got a larger budget. The ship pretty much stayed the same for those years, with the art improving a lot in 1978 when they made their first full feature film with a real budget. They kept that version or slight technical updated versions of it until the series ended in 1983. In 2009 the series got a very long overdo continuation feature film (it has been in development hell since the mid-90s). Being a sequel, it has updated animation and due to how they brought the ship back, it was different, but generally the same looking. It has some issues, mostly with the music not being done well the second half of the film (I think the conductor died during production). It was a part one for more sequel films, but that has been put on the back burning as other things proved more popular.
The following year a live action movie was made as a remake of the first and second series. The style was similar to the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. The ship itself looked more or less the same, but everything else about the series was heavily redone. Some way too heavily redone.
Two years after that, in 2012, a remake animation series was released, Space Battleship Yamato 2199. This series is similar to Rogue One is how it treats the source material. The whole thing is updated, but the general looks and feel of it is the same. But it is also different. After 40 years, the 70s story situations are gone. The worst parts (the occasional monster of the week, the silliest of the plotlines, and the bell bottoms) are missing. The crew, while not ethnically diverse (and they do explain why), is more even by gender than the original. Gone is the "one woman" syndrome (though to be fair, the original series did have more women on the ship for the first ten episodes (all in support services)....then they mysteriously vanished leaving just the one to the point where there only being one woman on the ship became a plot point for an episode. By the third series they again had more women on the ship (all nurses), until the mission was declared too dangerous and they all got shipped home, save for the one, who could pull rank and remain). Today, Yamato has a crew that is about 33% female, 66% male, 1% robot and/or aliens. They are in all the departments save engineering. The art has vastly improved in 40 years. The series continues into a remake of the second season to be known as Space Battleship Yamato 2202, which starts this Saturday.
In a Star Trek context, this would mean you could bring back say the Constitution-class ship design and have it look, externally, almost identical to its TOS days, with CGI improvements for higher resolution screens. The interior could have the same layout and color scheme, while appearing modern. The uniforms could be updated in the way they did for the 2009 film, as that worked fine. Equipment could be stylized the same as in the 1960s, but be 2010s useful. You don't need the old computer styling noises or paper printouts, or even to ancient E6B flight computer. What would be needed is the visual qualities to give the quick impression that this is the same thing. It isn't, but it is meant to seem like it is.
Space Battleship Yamato. The animated series from 1974 to 1983 had an evolving style as both the art styles improved and they got a larger budget. The ship pretty much stayed the same for those years, with the art improving a lot in 1978 when they made their first full feature film with a real budget. They kept that version or slight technical updated versions of it until the series ended in 1983. In 2009 the series got a very long overdo continuation feature film (it has been in development hell since the mid-90s). Being a sequel, it has updated animation and due to how they brought the ship back, it was different, but generally the same looking. It has some issues, mostly with the music not being done well the second half of the film (I think the conductor died during production). It was a part one for more sequel films, but that has been put on the back burning as other things proved more popular.
The following year a live action movie was made as a remake of the first and second series. The style was similar to the reimagined Battlestar Galactica. The ship itself looked more or less the same, but everything else about the series was heavily redone. Some way too heavily redone.
Two years after that, in 2012, a remake animation series was released, Space Battleship Yamato 2199. This series is similar to Rogue One is how it treats the source material. The whole thing is updated, but the general looks and feel of it is the same. But it is also different. After 40 years, the 70s story situations are gone. The worst parts (the occasional monster of the week, the silliest of the plotlines, and the bell bottoms) are missing. The crew, while not ethnically diverse (and they do explain why), is more even by gender than the original. Gone is the "one woman" syndrome (though to be fair, the original series did have more women on the ship for the first ten episodes (all in support services)....then they mysteriously vanished leaving just the one to the point where there only being one woman on the ship became a plot point for an episode. By the third series they again had more women on the ship (all nurses), until the mission was declared too dangerous and they all got shipped home, save for the one, who could pull rank and remain). Today, Yamato has a crew that is about 33% female, 66% male, 1% robot and/or aliens. They are in all the departments save engineering. The art has vastly improved in 40 years. The series continues into a remake of the second season to be known as Space Battleship Yamato 2202, which starts this Saturday.
In a Star Trek context, this would mean you could bring back say the Constitution-class ship design and have it look, externally, almost identical to its TOS days, with CGI improvements for higher resolution screens. The interior could have the same layout and color scheme, while appearing modern. The uniforms could be updated in the way they did for the 2009 film, as that worked fine. Equipment could be stylized the same as in the 1960s, but be 2010s useful. You don't need the old computer styling noises or paper printouts, or even to ancient E6B flight computer. What would be needed is the visual qualities to give the quick impression that this is the same thing. It isn't, but it is meant to seem like it is.
Last edited:
Yeah, this is pretty much what I would want to see.
That's pretty much what they did for the Defiant in ENT. It looked great, but it also looked a little dated.
I think one could go a bit further than that. As I've said before, giving the original Connies the refit style hull details would be fine by me, providing the overall shape of the vessel was not altered and they retained the original hull markings.
Similar threads
