I think we just need to accept the fact that this is a full reboot.

[Gonzo]

It's a reboot, they should have said that. i just see it as parallel timeline show. In 50 years from now this show will look ridiculous because how technology will advance.

That's the problem really, any changes like we have seen in the first two episodes may seem strange and out of place in the 2250s based on what we know is to come.

Now extrapolate those changes forwards into the 24th century and the differences could be huge in both technology level and ship design with no reason at all.

We can expect that with the new films as they are a reboot/reimagining based in an alternate timeline, the same cant be said for STD if it is truly the prime timeline they are basing the show in as we have been told.

STD is based 10 years before TOS if there are differences and discrepancies now imagine what they could be in 10 years time.

 

[Delaware123]

All Trek shows have their inaccuracies, but most of those are not intentional or blatant. TMP is one of the few exceptions, and it took us Trials and Tribble-ations and several episodes of Enterprise to finally fix it in canon. Then Discovery comes along and intentionally and illogically tries to break it again. This is Star Trek, not Doctor Who or Star Wars. Real World physics are supposed to mean something.

 

[cooleddie74]

Then again, look at the bridge designs and control interfaces of the TMP-through-TVH period, which in canon lasted about fifteen years from the time Starfleet launched its major refit program to upgrade and improve its existing starships circa 2271 until the Enterprise-A was launched under Kirk's command and apparently underwent a radical systems overhaul shortly after she left Spacedock for field testing. The bridges and much of the technology seen in Star Trek V and VI and during the Enterprise-B era at the end of the 23rd century was very different from what was commonplace on Federation starships just twenty years before.

They went from physical buttons, switches and toggles and a greyish-silver decor on many decks and in most areas of starships to flat touchscreens on almost every control panel (the handful of helm and navigation controls seen in Star Trek VI notwithstanding) and a darker, more "television news studio" look to bridge layout with little carrying over from the previous period of design save the external appearances of the ships and corridor shapes. Just because DSC looks radically different in most aesthetic respects from the Enterprise of Christopher Pike and James Kirk doesn't mean that all ships of the 2250s looked that way nor does it mean the look of the Discovery and other starships in the new series will be continued by Starfleet.

This is Starfleet. These people change uniform and phaser designs every time somebody in R&D or the Quartermaster Corps gets bored or breaks wind.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

To me, it's Prime....because they said it's Prime.

I don't need to 'accept' otherwise. If they mess up it's on them.

 

[Blamo]

If it's a reboot it's a very soft reboot. So soft only the visuals changed.

There's already a book out with Michael meeting Pike and Spock with them wearing TOS costumes.

 

[cooleddie74]

The one thing I don't get in the Discovery canon argument is that no-one ever brings up other inaccuracies. In Voyager it's stated that you can only ever travel at warp in a straight line, yet there have been multiple occasions of starships turning and altering course throughout Trek...

And not just that, but even the time in which TOS was supposed to be set changed from episode to episode early in the series. One week it's the 22nd century then it's the 28th. Then it may or may not be the 23rd. And never mind the fact that warp drive was a very recent invention in "The Cage" yet by the second season of the regular series it was invented by a human scientist who was believed to have died about 150 years earlier.

Trek is written by scores of different script- and screenwriters who don't always line up on continuity. All things considered, however, the Star Trek universe is remarkably consistent and logical in its historical flow for a franchise that's over 50 years old and consists of well over 700 television episodes and theatrical films produced by a vast diversity of people, many of whom never met nor even spoke with most of the others involved.

 

[Delaware123]

Until I am given logical, sufficient, and expicit information within the show, I will consider this a reboot moving forward.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Until I am given logical, sufficient, and expicit information within the show, I will consider this a reboot moving forward.

Like what?

 

[cooleddie74]

Until I am given logical, sufficient, and expicit information within the show, I will consider this a reboot moving forward.

But it's not. Just because it looks different doesn't mean it is.

Hell, none of the Rebel pilots on Yavin 4 in Rogue One have big, juicy 1970s sideburns and groovy perms but that doesn't mean R1 and A New Hope take place in different timelines.

 

[Delaware123]

Like somebody in the show explicitly explaining why they have super-advanced technology, and why the Klingons have had their biological DNA changed.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Like somebody in the show explicitly explaining why they have super-advanced technology, and why the Klingons have had their biological DNA changed.

That has nothing to do with it be a reboot and everything with it be a TV series produced in 2017. The "super-advanced technology" and the Klingon make up are different because production technology and real world technology have advanced since 1965, 1979. 1987 and even 2001. It's silly to be tied to a 20th Century version of the future.
Klingon make up is always evolving and becoming more alien. This is just the next step in that evolution. There is no "DNA change" to explain. Its fiction.

 

[Delaware123]

I politely disagree.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I politely disagree.

Did you disagree in 1979 and 1987?
This was a Klingon in 1966/67

This was a Klingon in 1967/68

This was a Klingon in 1979

This was a Klingon in 1987

This was also a Klingon in 1987

This was Klingon in 1991

 

[DigificWriter]

The producers did one thing at the beginning of the Star Trek 2009 process which made everything easier, they acknowledged that it would have to be a reboot so that they could be free to make the film they wanted to, then they came up with a story explaining how that could be.

Even then they kept much of the technology similar to TOS for the most part showing that they were paying attention to what came before even though they didn't have to, we have only had two episodes of STD and they have already shown us far more Starfleet technology advancements than the films and they were a true reboot, not to mention the Klingon ships and new facial features which seem to have been added for god knows what reason when there was no real need to do so after telling us its prime timeline.

This has already been said at least once, but Star Trek '09 is not a reboot... and neither is Discovery.

 

[Spider]

Yeah, well, after seeing the 3rd episode, I think we're actually in a 3rd Star Trek universe. We're way past simply rebooting.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yeah, well, after seeing the 3rd episode, I think we're actually in a 3rd Star Trek universe. We're way past simply rebooting.

Well I just started it. Is Burnham's prison jumpsuit green or gold?

 

[Spider]

Hey! I got it! This is actually a show in the mirror universe! The mirror universe episode we'll see them all back in their pastel jammies!

 

[Jayson1]

Of course you have the choice to watch or not watch, to enjoy or not enjoy. That is your absolute right as a consumer. No one is disputing that.

What you do NOT have the choice to do, is tell the people making the show what it IS. That's not your place. If they say it's in the prime timeline, it's in the prime timeline. Who are you to tell them any different? Only the people making a thing (not just TV shows - pretty much anything in the world, when you get right down to it) know what it IS.

Nobody is telling the people who make the show to think of it as reboot. Their choice to see it as Prime universe is just as valid as someone else seeing it as something else. Nobody is trying to take away and other person from viewing the show as they see fit. Art is in the Eye of the Beholder. It means something different to each individual and people should respect that kind of thinking. The only fact is that it is a show that is called "Star Trek" that is being created by the people who own the rights to that name and various stuff connected to it such as character names and alien species.

Jason

 

[cooleddie74]

Well I just started it. Is Burnham's prison jumpsuit green or gold?

Gold. And if you say otherwise I'm putting you in the agony booth and forcing you to watch footage of the skant uniform from TNG!

 

[Jayson1]

No one (new) would watch it if it looked like the 1960s.

Tell that to fans of "Mad Men" or "Game of Thrones" who also doesn't look modern seeing as how they aren't driving around in cars and talking on cell phones. "Legion" also seems to be in some sort of world that is kind of a mix of modern and old 60's design. "FIrefly" was part Western. The last few "X-Men" movies have been set in the past and the upcoming "Miss Marvel" movie is going to be in the 90's. If done right any show can be retro but also still have a timeless feel about it. It's all about how the look is done and more importantly what the stories and characters are about.

Jason