Because its science fiction. I enjoy Science fiction, Star Trek or no.
I appreciate the clarification because my experience with the term is almost always negative.
I'm not even sure I follow at this point.
Alex Kurtzman: 'Star Trek: Discovery' Will Spark Debate And Adhere To Canon
- Thread starter RAMA
- Start date
It is about folks pretty much trying to dismiss the look of TOS because it doesn't mesh with modern sensibilities. Some fans seem to be celebrating a key element of the franchise being lopped off in the name of modern sensibilities.
If someone want to tell a story in an already defined time period, it is their job to sell the time period. Not cast it off because it may be inconvenient. And I'm not someone who thinks it should look like Star Trek: Continues. But someone that thinks that it is the job of the creators to implement those sensibilities within a modern context.
I kinda went off on a rant.
I'm mixed on the point, because, as much as I like the aesthetic of TOS, I also am enjoying exploring a modern sensibility of this era, primarily because I here the arguments that Star Trek is "our future" ("our" being the collective humanity). So, the concept of a modern sensibility in light of that idea, as much as it is kind of weird, has some appeal to me.It is about folks pretty much trying to dismiss the look of TOS because it doesn't mesh with modern sensibilities. Some fans seem to be celebrating a key element of the franchise being lopped off in the name of modern sensibilities.
If someone want to tell a story in an already defined time period, it is their job to sell the time period. Not cast it off because it may be inconvenient. And I'm not someone who thinks it should look like Star Trek: Continues. But someone that thinks that it is the job of the creators to implement those sensibilities within a modern context.
I kinda went off on a rant.
Secondly, I think it fits better, based upon the limited details we have seen thus far, than it will ever be given credit. For an example on my part, I think that ST 09 has the style and feel of a contemporary film, while retraining much of the TOS spirit and themes. I think DSC flows from the NX-01 to the Kelvin and then DSC.
Finally, I don't think anything is being "lopped off." I think we need full context before determining the fit within the larger world building.
But it's not dismissed, and you don't have to be embarrassed of it or pretend it doesn't exist to feel it couldn't be successfully made today in the form in which it exists. I love Star Trek, and have done nearly all my life, in its original form on a crap TV with no remastered anything. But that doesn't mean I think that's what should be made today, because it isn't that time anymore.
Nothing will take TOS or TNG away from me regardless of what is made now, and I don't see any reason why the makers of modern Trek should be any more beholden to their looks, tone or aesthetics than TNG was in 1987. The similarities are all there, the comforts that make it look immediately like Trek. The old bridge layout is there, the delta symbol, ranks, transporters, saucers and nacelles, Klingons. Loads of Trek 'anchors' that were carried through the existing series are already established before they've even started, but they should feel free to take it all in a new direction, not be hemmed in by the specifics of a fifty year old show.
Which is why I believe it should be treated as a reboot (which is what I'm doing), and likely is by the studio.
For me, what they are doing with Discovery would be like Disney deciding to do a TV series between Star Wars: Episode IV and Episode V and redesigning everything, and then telling everyone "yeah, this is supposed to fit seamlessly between those two films".
Everyone's mileage varies...
Everyone's mileage varies...
Re the Romulan warp drive, I've always liked the solution given by McMaster et al in their Bird of Prey blueprints, namely that the Romulan power plant could not power the plasma weapon, cloaking device, and warp drive simultaneously.
Since we haven't seen every facet of the Star Wars universe, it would depend on the execution. Also, there are 3 years between those two episodes.
TMP is a great example in Star Trek's presentation.
But, as you say, mileage will vary.
I'm talking about the iconic elements. Star destroyers, storm troopers, wookies, and other things that are undeniably seen as "Star Wars" by fans. There would be riots.
Probably not as much as would be expected.I'm talking about the iconic elements. Star destroyers, storm troopers, wookies, and other things that are undeniably seen as "Star Wars" by fans. There would be riots.
As per Sarek in the trailer, they were at "the edge of Federation space". I'm inclined to think that is the literal setting, and the "end of the universe" thing is just marketing fluff.
Actually, the intent behind the design of the Romulan BoP -- based, I think, on a line deleted from the script -- was that the Romulans had stolen/copied Starfleet technology through espionage, which was why the ship's saucer and nacelles looked so much like those of the Enterprise.
"Warp" means bending spacetime by definition. There's really no other way of defining it. They weren't pulling these terms out of thin air; Roddenberry drew on research and consultation with scientists and engineers, as well as decades of SF literary precedent. The term "warp" for FTL drive based on distorting spacetime dates back to the 1930s, although I believe Trek was the first to use the specific phrase "warp drive."
Anyway, all that stuff about field coils and such is splitting hairs. The topic on the table is whether the Romulan nacelles were intended to represent components of an FTL drive, and I think it would take an extremely labored convolution of logic to pretend they weren't. Okay, yeah, Scotty said "their power is simple impulse," but as I suggested above, that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have warp drive too (it could be "simple impulse" as opposed to "advanced impulse" or something). And even if that was the intention of the script, the scriptwriter didn't design the ship. There are a couple of things in BoT where the scripted dialogue and the onscreen VFX don't quite line up -- for instance, the dialogue says the Neutral Zone surrounds the twin planets Romulus and Remus, suggesting it's a zone around a single star system, but the onscreen map shows a border between two interstellar territories and throws in the nonsense word "Romii" instead of using Remus. And of course there's the bit where the phasers are fired but look like torpedoes. So the script and the finished effects don't line up perfectly, because they were done by different people.
Well they did that with TMP, redesigned basically everything, iconic elements included, and everyone was cool with it. In three in universe years, almost every aspect of Starfleet aesthetic and technology changed, and that was just fine
Oh, not everyone was cool with it. There were some fans who refused to accept it as the same reality as TOS. There are always fans who denounce every new incarnation of Trek as illegitimate and wrong, and they always make a huge amount of noise about how "true fans" will never accept the new abomination... and then 20 or 30 years later, everyone forgets they ever existed.
I think there is a difference is opining that something doesn't fit and denouncing every new incarnation as illegitimate and wrong.
I do think that ultimately Discovery will feel like Trek, I am less sure that it will feel like it fits with what has been established about the "Prime" timeline.
"Ten years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise, there was Discovery."
That sets the reference points, why is that so hard to get? The producers want us to compare with Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise.. to that era and in keeping with the TV franchise the obvious elephant in the room, to The Original Series. Ten years isn't much.. anything hugely different or incompatible deserves to be pounced on critically.
That sets the reference points, why is that so hard to get? The producers want us to compare with Kirk, Spock and the Enterprise.. to that era and in keeping with the TV franchise the obvious elephant in the room, to The Original Series. Ten years isn't much.. anything hugely different or incompatible deserves to be pounced on critically.
Not to a 50 year old TV show. If you made a Gunsmoke Prequal, it would not look like the old TV show. It would look like a modern western. Because, while it may use characters and events from the old show, visual stylings have changed. TOS is a 50 year old TV show, and looks it, its dated and would look dated and campy without massive updating ( hello Kelvin) and any and everytime this is done, not everyone will ever be happy.
Updating how it looks, has zero effect on the events and canon.
Right. Some people get so fixated on the details of design that they forget that fiction is about story, character, and theme. The design elements are merely in support of those.
Think of it like different productions of Shakespeare that use different set and costume designs, even modernize the setting while keeping the words intact.
Admittedly, I'm surprised at just how different things like the costumes are. I'd expected them to be more a refinement of the original look than such a complete departure. But these things can be rationalized. Maybe we've been wrong to assume that all of Starfleet uses only one uniform style throughout. Maybe different divisions have different looks.
I'm not sure if that'd fit the overall picture - after all, I'm assuming Admirals and SFC are going to be redressed as well - but it's not a bad rational.
The US Navy has a variety from the tan shirts to blue coveralls, and they're still tweaking their new working uniforms based on feedback. There's no one suit fits all purposes now - I can't imagine there would be in the 23rd century either.
Updating how it looks compatible to how it *looked* is fine by me. Updating how it looks to something re-imaged is bullshitting us.
Similar threads
- Locked
