THREE things they DID get right aesthically...
- Thread starter Dar70
- Start date
Yeah, but I'm just as OK saying "the real-world TV people changed the look between the 2nh Pilot and the production run, but there was no corresponding in-universe change (i.e., it was always that way)."
There are too many other TV shows over the decades who have made major creative changes between the Pilot episode and production run that were ignored "in-universe" and instead just caulked up to real-world production design and creative decision.
I have no problem putting Star Trek into that same category as those other shows. That is to say, the look of the show that was created in the 1960s is just the look of the show, not necessarily the look of the Star Trek universe in 2265, and that TV look was subject to change at the whim of the art designers (which is what they did between the 2nd pilot and the production run).
9 years. Discovery takes place in 2256
At least ten years. It takes place ten years before Kirk, Spock, and the Enterprise.
Well, they were still wearing velour turtlenecks as well, even though they might have been old uniforms, so I don't know what to say.[\quote]
Uggh. Those uniforms are as similar to turtlenecks as my button up shirt is. Has anyone else actually seen a turtleneck?
This doesn't make any sense. The ship had a minor refit, they issued new uniforms, and phasers were issued in pistol form.
What are the issues with that explanation?
It was confirmed to take place 2 years after The Cage.
From http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Phaser:
According to Gene Roddenberry in The Making of Star Trek, two days into filming of the second pilot, they realized that three years later, people were going to say, "Oh, come on, lasers can't do that." The term was consequently substituted, based on the idea of the phasing principle of physics, which is a way of increasing power.
I'm perfectly willing to disregard some of the pilot stuff as early installation weirdness: they were always phasers and Kirk's middle initial was always T.
And while I wish Discovery had taken slightly more TOS-faithful approach in it's visuals, I think these props are pretty much perfect, they share the style and overall look of the original stuff while updating the details to modern standards.
And while I wish Discovery had taken slightly more TOS-faithful approach in it's visuals, I think these props are pretty much perfect, they share the style and overall look of the original stuff while updating the details to modern standards.
Straight from the Voice of Rod.
Welcome to Star Trek
Well I always assumed that, I was just clarifying for the rest of the audience.Welcome to Star Trek
Those hand lasers were mentioned twice in the series proper and shown a couple other times and never referred to as phasers. They didn't retcon the lasers they SWITCHED to phasers. If they had retconned them, they would have continued using the same prop and just changed the name. But they brought in a new prop, called it a phaser, and continued to differentiate it from the original hand lasers. Done and Done.
Early installment weirdness is some of the best parts of Star Trek and doesn't need to be retconned into bland, standardized, B&B Trek.
But if it will save hours of pointless typing then, "You win. I'm clearly and obviously wrong. Your version of Star Trek can only ever be the right one."
Last edited:
As I have brought up several times in other threads, real-world armed forces have dozens of different pistols and rifles in active use at any given time.
It's perfectly fine for Discovery's particular division of Starfleet to have different equipment than the Enterprise.
Kor
It's perfectly fine for Discovery's particular division of Starfleet to have different equipment than the Enterprise.
Kor
Including uniforms.As I have brought up several times in other threads, real-world armed forces have dozens of different pistols and rifles in active use at any given time.
It's perfectly fine for Discovery's particular division of Starfleet to have different equipment than the Enterprise.
Kor
In reading Twitter a little while ago, Ted Sullivan was just discussing a new Behind the Scenes photo he was sharing. Someone mentioned something to the effect that it didn't look like TOS or that period, with Sullivan replying that the technology is reflecting what they can do now, and if props/sets are what they were mainly interested in, then they're missing the point of Star Trek.
I 100% agree with him.
Yeah but good visual story telling has to conform to some type of standard. Trek is so disjointed in it's visual style that it can affect ones enjoyment of the story. This could have all been avoided if they moved the franchise forward. Story continuity and visual continuity would be a non issue. Both elements would pretty much be an open canvas....
That's Ted's opinion.
Similar threads
