• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Poll Do You Believe STD Is Actually a Reboot [After Seeing It]?

Is STD a Reboot?

  • Yes

    Votes: 115 39.9%

  • No

    Votes: 173 60.1%
  • Total voters
    288
BillJ said:
Why? Because they flutter a little bit? Holographic Sarek even leans on Burnham's desk.
Click to expand...
I can appreciate that Sarek can see Burnhams desk to lean on as perhaps he can see her immediate envionrment and she can see a bit of his but unless there is a desk with him in the room he is transmitting from in exactly the same place he should have fallen on his arse when he leaned on something that isn't there. :guffaw:
 
I've seen nothing so far to suggest a reboot.

I am one of those fans that would be glad to see new episodes of classic trek filmed in the style of the 1960s, only with more realistic effects, but vintage acting, set design and filming methods. Likewise for next gen, but this is trek for 2017, and I like this too.
 
Jedi_Master said:
No. It is not a reboot. It's simply a new show in the timeline that takes advantage of modern technology to show us all the cool stuff they couldn't in the 60's. Does anyone actually believe that TOS would have used velour and cardboard if it was made in our era? That is the best they could do with the money and the tech they had available, and it still managed to look very cool.
We get so hung up on "reboots" and other hot-button issues that we allow ourselves to pretend that colored blocks of wood were really computer disks and that anything that doesn't use a colored block of wood is a "reboot."
Click to expand...

Something that is retro doesn't mean the same as a 100% recreation. Did "X-Men: First Class" look like it was filmed in the 60's which was the setting of that film? The idea of being retro is to create the feel of something in the past but not to be a exact copy. Plus their is more to being modern than just CGI and futuristic or modern looking computers. It's things like diversity and modern human behavior that is what is more important for a show to feel relevant. It's not like Lorca would be going around talking about Burnham's erratic woman emotions or hippies would be showing up even if you did for some strange reason recreate the ship in exact detail.

Jason
 
BillJ said:
What makes it "Prime", beyond what the producers say? Because none of it lined up very well with what came before.
Click to expand...

There are so many inconsistencies through out all the Prime shows, that the producers telling me it's Prime is good enough for me. I'm not gonna complain about things that 'don't add up'. Retconning is and always has been a thing.

All this talk for example about how the Federation hasn't had contact with Klingons for almost a century, and that that was never mentioned in TOS. During the TOS, the Klingons have been around for about a decade. No one is gonna walk around and mention that all the time.
"Captain, we're being hailed by the Klingons. You know, that species we've started dealing with again about 10 years ago and we didn't see a 100 years before that?'
"Perhaps we should aid the Klingons, instead of fighting them. Since, you know, we've been in contact for a decade now after not talking for a century."

After this season is done, I'm gonna decide wether or not I like this new show. Sofar, I have. I couldn't care less if it's Prime or not. ENT retconned so many things, and that's still Prime aswell.
 
Kor said:
I would have absolutely loved it if it looked more like big-budget films of the 60s, such as 2001: A Space Oddysey.

Kor
Click to expand...
I like the retro simple look of the Discovery, I can just about imagine it alongside the TOS Enterprise if I try really really hard.

The Shenzou has so much going on when I look at the outer hull, its like an NX class that has had loads of extras bolted on.

That at least fits the timeline.

I also like the Discoverys saucer cutouts, got a bit of a Vengeance vibe from it, cutting it out like that gives the bridge a clear view of both above and below the saucer.

For once the crew can just look out of the window.
 
Jackson_Roykirk said:
And if they do connect it with, say, one event or one character situation that was uniquely Prime Universe, would that make it the Prime Universe?

Having said that, what event or aspect of a character would truly be "uniquely Prime Universe"? I mean, even if we find out that Spock is serving about Pike's Enterprise and was involved with the Talosian incident, some fans might still argued that DSC is a third Universe -- Not prime, Not Kelvin, but DSC.

In fact, we could see dozens of things that connect it to the Prime Universe (and nothing that uniquely connects it to the Kelvin Universe), but an argument from some fans might still be "Yeah -- but it's its own universe".
Click to expand...
For my own personal hang ups to be quenched?

Something that happened in or characters that exist in the PT that did not in the KT. George Kirk for example is alive in the PT at this point but not in the Kelvin.

As far as my own goofy brain wiring is concerned there are only three Star Trek universes the Prime, Kelvin, and Mirror. In order of DSC to have its own something would either have to happen to split a timeline of the writers would have to come out and say that they've created their own universe and are making up the rules as they go.

I'm completely open to the idea that at some point this season we will get something that solidifies this as taking place there (which again for me is something my brain craves...the connectivity). Right now it might as well be in the KT my head deals with that better everything looks like everything else in that universe.
 
The showrunners have said that DSC is not a reboot and that it exists within the prime timeline. I see no reason to disbelieve them. :shrug:

Cinema Geekly said:
Something that happened in or characters that exist in the PT that did not in the KT. George Kirk for example is alive in the PT at this point but not in the Kelvin.
Click to expand...

Also: Faran Tahir has said that he'd love to play Robau again, and that if DSC's people ask him to return, he'd gladly do it.
 
Last edited:
Butters said:
I've seen nothing so far to suggest a reboot.

I am one of those fans that would be glad to see new episodes of classic trek filmed in the style of the 1960s, only with more realistic effects, but vintage acting, set design and filming methods. Likewise for next gen, but this is trek for 2017, and I like this too.
Click to expand...
Star Trek Continues is pretty decent.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
There's nothing to "believe". The showrunners have said that DSC is not a reboot, so therefore, it is not one. Why are we even still talking about this?
Click to expand...

But were are the facts that the show isn't a reboot?. People's words and even intentions don't always matter when it comes to things that are open to different opinions. Look at "Battlestar Galatica" as another show example. What it is might be is different to different people. Some might say it's a space opera,some might call it a war show and another might call it a character drama.

If fans see this as a reboot and others a prime show isn't it impossible it might be both, depending on who you ask? Even the writers and creators can't make that call and can only define what it means to themselves. Why don't people's opinions matter in how the show is defined?

Jason
 
Jayson1 said:
People's words and even intentions don't always matter when it comes to things that are open to different opinions.
Click to expand...

The word of the people actually making the show can be considered definitive. If the showrunners say DSC isn't a reboot, then it isn't.
 
Bry_Sinclair said:
It seemed like a reasonable explanation for why it looks so out of place, otherwise it means that the PTB actually thought this was a good way to go.
Click to expand...

Trouble is that reasoning doesn't follow. This show is being made by/for CBS, so if the (incorrect) rumour about split copyrights was correct, it would mean by default it is a prime universe show in continuity with the other TV shows, because anything else was off limits.

In reality, they have the whole Trek universe to play with, so they updated the pre-TOS era to a 2017 show. It was a deliberate choice. Personally, I'd have gone with something contemporaneous to the jj movies set in that universe, but they wanted their own world to do something of galactic scope, which I understand.
 
Prax said:
Haven't they called it a reimagining? You can use that word if it pleases.
Click to expand...

I'm OK with that.

And yes, I'm aware that some people consider the words 'reboot' and 'reimagining' to mean the same thing, but I don't.

IMHO, 'reimagining' just changes the LOOK of the show. Obviously DSC is that. And it wouldn't be the first time they've done it, either. The first Trek film was a reimagining, since it looked quite a bit different from TOS. Same goes for TNG, DS9, and Voyager. But in all of those cases, it still took place within a consistent, single timeline.

A 'reboot' means a discarding of continuity - like nuBSG - and I do NOT consider DSC to be that.
 
Last edited:
BillJ said:
So you just listen to the creators, you put no thought of your own into what you're watching/reading? Take nothing away from it that wasn't intended?
Click to expand...

In short, if the owners of Coca-Cola would piss into a coke bottle and sell it as Coca-Cola it is Coca-Cola, they own it they decide, you can put as much thought into it as you want, you don't get a say. You can criticize the product, you can buy or not buy it, still, that piss is now Coca-Cola.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
The word of the people actually making the show can be considered definitive. If the showrunners say DSC isn't a reboot, then it isn't.
Click to expand...

Not really. All art is subjective IMO. What if they write a episode you don't like but they love it. Does it mean your dislike for it is the wrong opinion since it doesn't match up with the creators? Maybe in their minds they don't see it as a reboot but that only really matters to themselves because the criteria they use to consider something canon or not might be different from other people.

Plus we got the extra issue of how much of the show's vision is that of CBS and how much left is their of it from Fuller ad how much of it is from the current showrunners. The show might literally have 3 different visions of what is canon or not being mixed together. Of course this is how the conspiracy stuff, begins. How much of the vision is it that of CBS and how much vision are the showrunners allowed to do by CBS. Who exactly has the most control over the show?

Jason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top