Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
If I was going to choose three adjectives to describe the design of TOS, they certainly wouldn't be "sleek, minimalist, and believable."
Problem with future Trek is that we know they survive another 700 years. That takes a lot of the dramatic excitement out of it.
The U.S.S. Constellation's (Starship Class) Registry is NCC-1017 the Enterprise's (also Starship Class) is NCC-1701...so, yeah, your point again?
Many have read your post band SHOWN YOU that since ST:TMP the "Klingon look' generally HASN'T been all that consistent. (You feel the TNG era should be the 'standard' but it never has been as STVI:TUC was released DURING TNG's run; and unless you really want to squint/ignore how they looked in that film - they DIDN'T look like TNG Klingons (you recall the Pink blood too?) The people responding to you AREN'T the ones with blinders on RE the Klingon look in the Star Trek franchise.
You don't like the Klingon look for ST: D and it makes you not really want to watch, accept the show as presented. I get it - as do most of th people who replied to you.
That doesn't change the fact that since 1966 the 'look' of the Klingons has changed drastically many times over the run of the franchise. that's not fantasy - that's just a production fact. It doesn't make the decision right or wrong (as there really isn't a right decision here as again the look HASN'T been consistent for 50+ years.)
ME - as it's TOS era - I WOULD have preferred they go with the TOS series Klingon look because that's how they appeared in that Star Trek era. That they didn't is no big deal IMO - but that's me.
Last edited:
Like I said, there are a lot of inconsistencies, but in general the ships progress from NCC-1701 to NX-2000 and so on. Also the real world reason for the Constellation's registry is because they just rearranged 1701 from the Enterprise model kit.The U.S.S. Constellation's (Starship Class) Registry is NCC-1017 the Enterprise's (also Starship Class) is NCC-1701...so, yeah, your point again?
If it's Prime Universe, something really big happens in the three years between "The Cage" and Discovery, then undoes itself before "Where No Man Has Gone Before"... or maybe it's another reboot.
TNG HARDLY held to canon any better than TOS did.
Pike likes things retro.
If it's Prime Universe, something really big happens in the three years between "The Cage" and Discovery, then undoes itself before "Where No Man Has Gone Before"... or maybe it's another reboot.
Vulcans mastered the hologram technology long before humanity did.
Because what would really make sense is using a sci-fi vision from the 1960s in 2017 rather than a 2017 vision of sci-fi because "canon."
If it's Prime Universe, something really big happens in the three years between "The Cage" and Discovery, then undoes itself before "Where No Man Has Gone Before"... or maybe it's another reboot.
I'm just gonna say it. Canon sucks. It's a bummer. It's an arbitrary, made-up, self-imposed fandom buzzkill. It's basically only used to tell writers what they can't do because reasons.
The Cage: Filmed in 1965
If it's Prime Universe, something really big happens in the three years between "The Cage" and Discovery, then undoes itself before "Where No Man Has Gone Before"... or maybe it's another reboot.
Discovery: Filmed in 2017
Winner? Common Sense
I think the issue we're pointing out is that it doesn't mesh with Ted Sullivan's statement of DSC being a true prequel to TOS. I have yet to see anything that indicates they're going for a TOS feel (except maybe the communicator.)
I KNOW the production reason for that in 1967 they could have also to 1710 but because TV resolution of the day was low - they were concerned viewers might mistake the Costellation for the Enterprise.
But that said, it doesn't change what actually appeared on screen - and in Star Trek what is on screen is canon. You can't disregard it (if you're defending it and saying 'Star Trek canon is sacrosanct'; which effectively is the basis of your argument here - you can't handwave the Costellation Registry number away with "well in most cases.." because the U.S.S. Shenhzou registry number could indeed be expalined as another 'edge case'.
If people honestly expected them to model this show after what special effects and set design was capable of in 1966 (not to mention how people envisioned the future before normal computers were even invented) they need to get their heads checked. New Star Trek shows used to be set further into the future each time precisely to prevent these kind of discrepancies, but we don't have that luxury this time. Star Trek has been off tv for a decade and a half, and TOS era Trek is where the money is. Just be glad for the show we're getting.
For all intents and purposes the show is set in the prime universe. I don't think it matters all that much personally; there has never been much carryover between Star Trek shows. Usually it's just some small references throughout the run that connects the new show to what came before. The main reason this is prime is probably because Paramount and CBS don't have the same rights as far as Star Trek is concerned. People shouldn't expect to see nuTrek actors making appearances on the show in other words. If someone still wants to imagine that this is set in the Kelvin universe there's nothing that stops them I suppose, but it doesn't make it so.
For all intents and purposes the show is set in the prime universe. I don't think it matters all that much personally; there has never been much carryover between Star Trek shows. Usually it's just some small references throughout the run that connects the new show to what came before. The main reason this is prime is probably because Paramount and CBS don't have the same rights as far as Star Trek is concerned. People shouldn't expect to see nuTrek actors making appearances on the show in other words. If someone still wants to imagine that this is set in the Kelvin universe there's nothing that stops them I suppose, but it doesn't make it so.
And it probably wouldn't make a practical difference anyway.
If it's Prime Universe, something really big happens in the three years between "The Cage" and Discovery, then undoes itself before "Where No Man Has Gone Before"... or maybe it's another reboot.
And the same comparison can be made between TOS and Enterprise... we just have to face it and deal with the fact that production values and props in 1966 SUCKED. They were great for their time, and the vision of the future was "visionary"... but it turned out to be half-way non-realistic. Each iteration of Star Trek places the aesthetic of the technology into the future based on what we have now and where we think it'll go. To expect that we'd still be using 6" CRT monitors for video conferencing 250 years from now is silly; likewise, no one in 1966 would have foreseen that PDF files and tablets with email would replace most paper print outs for short term use of sharing... or that we'd NOT be wearing turtleneck sweaters and Cuban heeled boots.
Not unless technology gets bombed back to the stone age and there is the Great Rebuilding of 2175.
Common what ?
Totally agree. And quite frankly, I find it a little odd they're even using what are essentially flip phones that far into the future. That is probably just a concession for the people who are primed (no pun intended) to get upset about the time period and tech changes.
Similar threads
