Its not period, its made up. The visual style changed in every way in 3 years of setting time, even the look of some races changed. Its not an historic era, its a made up universe.
News Jonathan Frakes will direct an episode of Discovery
- Thread starter The Nth Doctor
- Start date
Its not period, its made up. The visual style changed in every way in 3 years of setting time, even the look of some races changed. Its not an historic era, its a made up universe.
Really ? I had no idea and thought it was all true, some kind of historical record that fell through a hole in time. Well colour me disappointed. I had better hand in my membership card at the gate.
Thank goodness my other fandoms are totally real...that's why I have a Tardis on the upstairs landing, and was just polishing my wand...made by ollivander you know...yesterday.
Or alternatively, I was simply saying Trek is approached like a period piece...which it, historically, has been, and is good a way of thinking about it as anything.
Thanks. It seems to fit.
The term " period piece" has a set meaning. Sci fi is not "peroid" unless you are making a show about the creation and filming of the TOS in the 1960s. Othereise, its not peroid.
Trek three the TOS look out, 3 or 4 i. Setting years after the TOS. You guys know this. Trek is not peroid.
I have heard actors describe it as such, and it is essentially approached in that way a lot of the time...something else SF that was done that way is Star Wars...Rogue One is basically a period piece.
Is it a literal period piece, in the way you understand it? No. But in every way, except for being based on reality, it actually is. It's why I was discussing it in terms of other period pieces, which are set in the same period, yet have different production values and approaches according to when they are made. The only difference between Rome and Trek, is that Rome is a fictionalised story set in past historical period that may or may not bare a strong or no resemblance to an actual place and time, and Star Trek is a fictionalised story set in a future period in history, that may bare a strong or no resemblance to an actual place and time, given that it's the future and it's fiction.
It's already more accurate than Braveheart is in that regard xD
It's the weight of the Star Trek canon (in the looses sense) that makes it essentially like a period piece. Which Elizabeth do you prefer, Glenda Jackson or Cate Blanchett? Which Kirk? Shatner? Vic? Pine?
Got it?
Edit: that comes off a bit rude ending it there, but I was rushing.
My point is about the approach...both as fans and as producers, to Trek. A lot of things snap into place when you regard it as a period piece. And it's been done that way.
Last edited:
I think it's fun to think of Star Trek as a period piece, given how the production design of the 90's series' try to portray it as such. Basically, 'this is what this time period looked like, and we maintain it.' But that was then, and Discovery and its new aesthetic is now, that doesn't fit into that mentality, which I think is just fine too. We have a new visual for new legends pulled from the hypothetical universe of stories that is Star Trek. The argument 'Star Trek is not a period piece' vs 'Star Trek is a period piece' is a bit flawed in premise in my eyes because Star Trek doesn't need to be one empirical thing.
Great news about Frakes coming back - colour me cautiously optimistic! First Contact is one of my favourite Trek films and I'm looking forward to see what his take on Discovery will be.
Whilst, as with others, I'd have preferred that they'd have made a show set post-Nemesis rather than another prequel, I'm excited that the show is finally returning to the small screen and hope it's a huge success. It's odd to think that a show that was so omnipresent when I was a kid has now been off the air for over a decade!
Whilst, as with others, I'd have preferred that they'd have made a show set post-Nemesis rather than another prequel, I'm excited that the show is finally returning to the small screen and hope it's a huge success. It's odd to think that a show that was so omnipresent when I was a kid has now been off the air for over a decade!
We can debate the semantics of "period piece," but I've seen too many comparisons to actual historical anachronisms to be entirely comfortable with that line of reasoning. Changing the art direction on a sci-fi show is NOT the same thing as putting machine-guns in a Revolutionary War movie or having Joan of Arc dress like a 1920s flapper or whatever other overwrought comparison might come to mind.
Unless we want to completely lose the distinction between fiction and reality.
Last edited:
Fine. Don't treat it like a period piece then. Treat it exactly how they treat Episode IV and the Original Trilogy in Star Wars. That won't let anyone lose his/hers grip with reality will it now? 
Last edited:
Fine. Don't treat it like a period piece then. Treat it exactly how they treat Episode IV and the Original Trilogy in Star Wars. That won't let anyone lose his/hers grip with reality will it now?
Bad comparison. Star wars is not earth, our galaxy or the future. It also does not have a habit of changling styles every decade.
No, it was even more painfully grounded in much older times:
Han Solo's Blaster is really an 1896 firearm!
Millennium Falcon's Cockpit is really from a 1942 Bomber!
Dozens of other examples also. When did they get quietly updated and I missed it?
I think the point is that through the inclusion of obvious antiques, Star Wars has a timeless look that works for a setting that is completely disconnected from our own world. Basically, it's not our future, so it doesn't have to look like it. (Not that Star Trek is our future either)
Exactly this. Star Trek isn't our future either. They can't have it both ways. First arguing that Star Trek isn't a period piece, but then claiming that unlike Star Wars, Star Trek represents Earth's future. Because, if it is meant to be Earth's future, then we should treat it with the same approach and reverence as a historical film about our past.
Either way, I would have preferred that the look be close to what's established. It's not set in stone, it's not like actual history, but I don't think it needs to reflect an up-to-the-minute vision of what the future will be like. Our vision of the future is always changing, and it won't be the same in ten years as it is now. Better to look a bit retro (as long as it looks good, no skimping on quality) and not look "soooo 2017" further down the line. So I guess what I'm saying is just what I've said many times before in several threads: I want Star Trek to look like Star Trek.
It also looks exactly like Star Trek: Discovery. "I want Star Trek to look like Star Trek" feels like it's pretty close to "old man yells at cloud" territory.It will. Very much like Star Trek...
'09.
I hope the show is good. But if it doesn't fit in visually, that'll take it down a few notches in my eyes. It's not enough to bother most people, and there's nothing I can do about it, so I'll have to either live with it or not watch it.
Of course you can have it both ways - representing our future means that Star Trek is as changeable as our vision of our own future. As that changes, so will the 'period' in which the show is set. Representing the future doesn't mean permanently representing the future imagined in 1966.
Oh great! I can already see the crew of the Shenzhou/Discovery walking in the corridors holding their iCorders and iPadds, taking HoloSelfies for their Facegram and Instachat and updating their status to RedAlerted when the ship's attacked. That's what representing the future as imagined in 2017 means.
Why do people keep thinking everyone who thinks the show doesn't fit with the prime universe, instantly hates the show because of that? I mean I know some people might be like that but I wish others would notice their are people like me who thinks the show is going to feel more like a 3rd universe setting and is okay and even excited by that. Maybe it's because I enjoy the Prime universe and the Kelvin Universe and is open to yet another one.
Jason
Similar threads
