Was it ever really possible to do a pure prime prequel in the "TOS" era?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
Do we ever see a situation where they upload data from the devices, or could it be that the data is uploaded later when plugged in?
TOS had wireless energy transfer, as seen with the laser cannon in "The Cage", which was powered by the ship in orbit.
Another TNG example, why didn't Data have a wi-fi connection to the Enterprise computer, instead of needing his head plugged in via a cable and socket in engineering?
I'm not sure why people think the 60's look can't be made to look modern? If you took the TOS bridge replaced the consoles with modern touchscreens, make the viewer bigger,and the entire size of the bridge with it and a more sturdy looking rail, a robot and paint it grey you would have a modern looking set. Use the Kelvin Universe uniforms along with other variations as well and maybe tone down the colors and ditch the skirts which also things to help it look modern and of course use modern cinetogrophy and film it in HD.
Jason
Jason
I always took it as Data accessing and scanning through his own memory files. But it could be seen as either.
I think it's fair to say Trek's been very inconsistent with it's technology, with contradictory evidence for and against stuff like wi-fi.
I have made the same post, almost literally word for word, about using the TOS bridge specs with modern tech and aesthetics, maintaining and respecting the past while giving it a modern coat of paint.
That's sorta what lets them do Star Wars, though. That culture/universe has been extremely stagnant for thousands (?) of years. There's really no improvements, no big change in tech, it's a dead-end culture. KOTOR era looks like TPM looks like TFA.I feel the same way about it. I loved Rogue One, but let's not stagnate just for the sake of nostalgia. Luckily, all the characters from that one are toast.
It's easier to slip another movie in when the look of the universe never changes. There are minor FILMING changes which update things, so no more muppets, the Falcon got a facelift and new details, ton more green screen and twirling, but it's basically all the same. Less 70's hair and porn staches, I suppose.
Trek is seen as (slightly) more rooted in reality, tied to the near future timeframe, and also significantly advancing even in the span of only 100 or so years. Ships change, technology, uniforms, alliances, etc. None of that is overly true in the Star Wars lore.
I never really bought into the idea that Trek tech is more grounded. For me is the oposite. It always been a little to slick and futuristic looking for me to think that anything in the future would ever look like that stuff but I could see a X Wing or a Millininum Falcon or any of the empire's ships looking like it could be created by humans. Well most of it anyways. I don't think we will ever have vehicles that walk on legs.
That is why most of Trek still looks futuristic to me. Other than the graphics on the computer consoles what exactly looks contemporary on any of the shows? I think people are getting some of old school vibe more from the stories,such as no story arcs, era vibes etc or the fact they were still using film and old cameras instead of filming everything in HD or the overly bright lights or the lack of camera movement or even characters moving. How many times have we seen a scene were it's just characters standing to each other talking without even moving? We also the talking head stuff were you cut from a closeup of one character talking to a closeup of another responding and back and forth for the entire scene.
Out of all the stuff that makes some of these shows feel dated I would say the tech is the least of the reasons for those feelings for the most part.
Jason
That is why most of Trek still looks futuristic to me. Other than the graphics on the computer consoles what exactly looks contemporary on any of the shows? I think people are getting some of old school vibe more from the stories,such as no story arcs, era vibes etc or the fact they were still using film and old cameras instead of filming everything in HD or the overly bright lights or the lack of camera movement or even characters moving. How many times have we seen a scene were it's just characters standing to each other talking without even moving? We also the talking head stuff were you cut from a closeup of one character talking to a closeup of another responding and back and forth for the entire scene.
Out of all the stuff that makes some of these shows feel dated I would say the tech is the least of the reasons for those feelings for the most part.
Jason
Heck, we had three separate Sherlock Holmes series running concurrently not too long ago, each with their own continuities. Somehow the general public didn't get Robert Downey Jr and Benedict Cumberbatch confused, nor wonder how Lucy Liu fit into the movie series.
Although I do remember having to practically twist a friend's arm to get them to check out SHERLOCK because they objected on principle to the idea of a modernized Holmes series because it wasn't "true' or "respectful" to the original canon. (Needless to say, they loved it once I forced them to watch it.)
Ultimately, who cares if a prequel series is "pure" enough? Purity is overrated.
Last edited:
And so changeable. What's heresy today is dogma tomorrow *cough* everything about TNG *cough*
Amen. Just because something takes liberties with an earlier version doesn't mean that the creators are lazy or sloppy or clueless. It just means they made a deliberate artistic choice to tinker with the source material for reasons. And that applies to Star Trek, comic books, Arthurian legends, Greek mythology, or whatever.
Take the new WONDER WOMAN movie for example. I'm pretty sure the filmmakers didn't set it in World War I instead of World War II because they didn't know any better, or because they couldn't be bothered to keep their World Wars straight. They did it on purpose for what they deemed good reasons.
Same with Star Trek. They're not updating the look because they don't care about "canon." They're making deliberate judgement calls regarding how best to produce a new STAR TREK tv series in 2017.
Heck, we had three separate Sherlock Holmes series running concurrently not too long ago, each with their own continuities. Somehow the general public didn't get Robert Downey Jr and Benedict Cumberbatch confused, nor wonder how Lucy Liu fit into the movie series.
Although I do remember having to practically twist a friend's arm to get them to check out SHERLOCK because they objected on principle to the idea of a modernized Holmes series because it wasn't "true' or "respectful" to the original canon. (Needless to say, they loved it once I forced them to watch it.)
Ultimately, who cares if a prequel series is "pure" enough? Purity is overrated.
Adaptations of a literary source. In some cases not even that but 'based on'. There is a very important difference.
Except...when it isn't that way. Sometimes a cock up is a cock up, sometimes being lazy is being lazy, not everything labelled as such was a creative decision. Ymmv, but people usually sense which is which...two reboots for example....BSG is a bunch of creative decisions as you describe, whereas the Nikita series was neither fish nor fowl...many creative decisions, many straight lifts from another reboot/remake, some of which were lazy. That earlier series of course was a 'for TV' remake of a film which already had a remake because some people just don't handle subtitled films.
Of course, you could argue there was one original, and the later series are 'based on' which is very true, and partially how Trek works...'based on' the original series...however, for the longest length of time, an effort was made for them to be in continuity with that original...which is now continuing.
I don't know. I think that's an arbitrary distinction, aside from issues of public domain and copyright. Most franchises have literary roots somewhere, but run into the same issues. Just the other day, I saw some old-school PLANET OF THE APES purists bashing the new movies on the grounds that, damnit, "real" POTA movies feature actors in makeup, not CGI, and why aren't they wearing the costumes from the original movies? Despite the fact that the franchise began with a novel by Pierre Boulle.
And let's be honest here: If and when somebody reboots LOGAN'S RUN, some folks are still going to want it to be just like the 1970s movie and TV show, despite existence of the original novel.
None of this stuff is set in stone. It's all grist for the mill.
Last edited:
Laziness would be taking what came before and just rehashing it. Making everything look, sound, and feel exactly the same as what we've already seen. I'd rather they stretch themselves and attempt something different (even if it fails) than to rest on Trek's laurels.
It would be like a high school only educated patient directing a surgeon on how to perform bypass surgery, based on the sensible decision that the patient is the owner of the defective heart.
I can't imagine something more cringeworthy than a series created solely for the "die-hard fans."
Similar threads
