Yeah, you must not have been around long enough man. It has been something fans have been demanding an explanation for since TMP, but after the Joke, it got pretty insistent.
News Star Trek: Discovery – Adhering To Canon
- Thread starter AutoAdmin
- Start date
Yeah, you must not have been around long enough man. It has been something fans have been demanding an explanation for since TMP, but after the Joke, it got pretty insistent.
I don't see it as a contradiction, any more than Vulcanians, James R. Kirk, etc. etc.
No explanation was needed, any more than the uniforms needed an explanation in TMP.
The original Enterprise had a kitchen, so I think it was like a dumb waiter, only smarter.
That's not why I "watch it." I enjoy the visuals, but I only had audio of some episodes for a while, as well as the TOS Concordance, and my imagination. So, the visuals are not why I watch it. I enjoy it for the characters, setting and story.
Sorry, 'looks' ARE canon. No one complained when they rebuilt a TOS era Bridge and used it in ENT - "A Mirror Darkly". IF (and it's a big IF) they actually do show the 1701 U.S.S. Enterprise, I would expect it to look as it did (perhaps with real touchscreen monitors, etc. It's how the ship loked in the 2250ies and 2260ies. "Looks" are indeed canon.
Because CBS wasn't trying to float a multi-million dollar venture with 1960s sets as its centerpiece.
Check out Star Trek 2009, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek Beyond for an updated Constitution class bridge with touch-screens. It works for me.
Sorry no, looks are not canon.
Works for me to, but per the ST: D producers, it's the look of a DIFFERENT UNIVERSE. They have stated ST: D takes place in the 'Prime' Star Trek Universe. Again, we will probably never see the interior of a Starship Class/Constitution Class Bridge on ST: D. IF we ever do, I would expect it to look very similar to what was shown in TOS- "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" or TOS - "Where No Man Has Gone Before". IF they are adhering to 'canon' the Bridge of a Starship Class/Constitution Class ship looked that way.
OK then. See Star Trek: Discovery for the updated look with touchscreens. If you would rather watch bad fan films with a poor 1960s aesthetic, there are a number online.
It looks like what ever the current show runners, set designers, make up artists and sfx artists put on the screen. It changes as the technologies change. It should never stay static and mired in the past.
Last edited:
They are going forward. Don't confuse a dates on a calendar with moving forward creatively.
Hmm. Because the content of my DVDs hasn't changed. It still looks the same as it always has.
Why would your DVDs need to change? My comic books don't change when something is changed in Superman's backstory. I can read and enjoy all my Superman comics and not fret over the fact "Jor-L" is now "Jor-el"
Last edited:
So basically, "We are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia" is perfectly fine from your POV?
Seriously, no one is arguing for "blind adherence to cannon" [sic]. You're arguing against a straw man here. What some of us are arguing for is a reasonable level of internal consistency, nothing more nor less.
I'm inclined to agree. So did the producers who gave us lovingly faithful recreations of the original Enterprise in TNG's "Relics" and ENT's "In A Mirror, Darkly." Personally speaking, I found those some of the most emotionally evocative moments of those episodes, and they rank among my favorite episodes of their respective series.
Yeah, there's clearly a lot of strawmanning going on here. It's disappointing; an honest discussion of different fans' perceptions and preferences, without the disingenuous mischaracterizations, would be much more interesting. (The same applies to the whole "fans can't take a joke" bit about the Klingons, which is just bizarrely wide of the mark.)
I'm really not clear on what you're trying to say here, so feel free to clarify. But at the moment, if by "the Kelvin look" you're talking about the design aesthetics of the JJ Abrams films and arguing that they bore some meaningful resemblance to TOS, then no. Just... no. They didn't.
The design aesthetics of the Abrams films were godawful. They were ugly to look at and weren't even internally consistent with themselves. To whatever extent the design aesthetics of STD resemble them, that is not a good thing. Fortunately, that extent seems to have been moderated quite a bit after the two-part premiere.
Moreover, the alternative is clearly not "1960s sets," so you're just indulging in more strawmanning here. There are lots of different design approaches that could be taken, including approaches closer to the original TOS-era designs that still incorporate modern lighting, construction, and effects capabilities.
Really, I suspect what's motivating a lot of the defenders of the new show's look, without them being willing to come right out and say so, is that they simply don't like the look of TOS. If so, then, well, personal opinions are subjective and they're entitled to theirs, but I wish they'd be open and honest about it. Personally I think that's a damn shame. IMHO the original Star Trek had better design work in most ways than any of the later series, despite its budget constraints, thanks to the brilliant and dedicated efforts of people like Matt Jefferies and his colleagues. That is the look that defines Trek for me and millions of others, and every show and movie since has been doing nothing but playing riffs and variations on it.
If you make a claim then the burden of proof is customarily on you to provide.
Don't get personal or tell people you're placing them on ignore or it will result in an infraction.
Don't get personal or call people to respond to an insult with the @ function or it will result in an infraction.
Since you both crossed the line and provoked each other we'll let this one wash and go with a verbal warning, but don't let it happen again.
Comments to PM.
Last edited:
700 plus hours of screen time over fifty years.
I challenge you to make a good show which lasts that long under dozens of writers and NOT have continuity issues, especially in a show where the writers were never particularly encouraged to even try to maintain continuity.....
No, but what I am saying is that, from a visual (not a story point of view), aesthetics change, and what looks good 50 years ago may not look good now. Reasonable level of internal consistency is good from a story point of view, but visuals have to keep up with the times.
Face it, Discovery is not made just for the fans who hold their noses when it looks more modern than a 1960's tv series. It's made by a network trying to get new viewers as well.
I think it's ironic, because so many people say that Star Trek is so iconic and it's great for sales. Yet at the same time they say, no one could ever possibly watch anything remotely resembling it.
Whether the JJ esthetics worK In the Kelvin universe is debatable. It should not spill over into the Prime Universe, as the "contamination " was one way.
Bonanza is Iconic but people would not watch a show looking like it now days.
So nobody would watch a show that looks like it's set in a western town?
Similar threads
- Locked
