Would you watch the Discovery if the producers said it was a reboot and it still looked like it does today?
I think we just need to accept the fact that this is a full reboot.
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
Would you watch the Discovery if the producers said it was a reboot and it still looked like it does today?
Did you also abstain from 1979 until 2005, when they explained the Klingons last time?
Because if not you're a fake fan
Agreed.
I come on here to piss and moan because:
1) Discovery is a show I want to like
2) I liked a lot of the 2 episodes I watched
3) I want to know when it's safe to come back, because I can't watch a prequel that looks so different than the source material with an explanation.
4) I was too young to understand or care when they gave ridges to Klingons in the movies.
5) The Make-up change was made on a forward-going basis before. It probably wouldn't have been such a big deal except that DS9 and ENT called it out, thus codifying it into law.
6) If DSC says this is a mirror universe or somehow else can explain the changes diagetically, than I know it's safe to come back.
7) Visual aesthetics are part of the storyline cannon. Changing them does affect the story.
8) By trying to tell me this is what Klingons have always looked like, you insult my intelligence and the intelligence of every fan that saw and respects those stories that came before.
9) Most of these problems could have been solved if they had just placed this series in the future instead of trying to create yet another prequel.
10) I still want to see DSC succeed, but I want them to explain these things so the show makes sense... And then I can come back.
1) Discovery is a show I want to like
2) I liked a lot of the 2 episodes I watched
3) I want to know when it's safe to come back, because I can't watch a prequel that looks so different than the source material with an explanation.
4) I was too young to understand or care when they gave ridges to Klingons in the movies.
5) The Make-up change was made on a forward-going basis before. It probably wouldn't have been such a big deal except that DS9 and ENT called it out, thus codifying it into law.
6) If DSC says this is a mirror universe or somehow else can explain the changes diagetically, than I know it's safe to come back.
7) Visual aesthetics are part of the storyline cannon. Changing them does affect the story.
8) By trying to tell me this is what Klingons have always looked like, you insult my intelligence and the intelligence of every fan that saw and respects those stories that came before.
9) Most of these problems could have been solved if they had just placed this series in the future instead of trying to create yet another prequel.
10) I still want to see DSC succeed, but I want them to explain these things so the show makes sense... And then I can come back.
Also, these arguments aren't going to go away. This debate about the head ridges and advanced technology will stick with Discovery like an augment virus until a cure is administered.
Yes, then I would watch it.
Then just treat it as a reboot. They can't control how you interpret the material they give you. I just wish the material they were giving us was worth my time.
Maybe I come from a more naive generation...
Back in 1979 when TMP totally changed the look of Klingons -- and gave no explanation -- I simply said to myself:
"Wow...Cool Klingon makeup for this new look Trek!"
I ddin't say:
"Hey, wait...Who are these big-headed aliens that they are calling Klingons? Klingons are supposed to look like swarthy goatee'd humans!"
I must be from the same generation.
But we know a lot of people did question the change in look.
So what does that say about the intelligence of fans who were "old enough" to understand the change in Klingons back in 1979?
You're old enough now to understand what they did then, and that it was only a totally different set of writers and producers who tried to explain it 30 years later.
Just relax and enjoy it for what it is.
True, but didn't they still accept TMP as being part of the TOS universe? Were there people saying that TMP must be considered a story reboot because TMP Klingons don't look like TOS Klingons? Maybe some people in 1979 said this, but the standard reaction was to accept the fact that it was the same fictional universe, and TMP was a true sequel to Star Trek.
There will always be people questioning Trek continuity (and I'll include visual continuity, not just story continuity) -- making the differences in continuity fit in with "the prime universe" is part of being a Trek fan, after all. However, questioning the continuity is not the same as saying:
"That [look, story detail, etc] goes against continuity; therefore the show is NOT part of the same fictional universe, but rather a full reboot."
Last edited:
Discovery can't be a reboot because its reignited the Klingon makeup debate, spawned endless meaningless canon arguments, and pissed off a good chunk of the loyal viewerhood. Just like Enterprise did, and Voyager before it.
Discovery is quintessentially Star Trek, and couldn't be less if it tried.
Discovery is quintessentially Star Trek, and couldn't be less if it tried.
I wonder how all the people who are defending the "visual reboot" are going to feel if by the end of the season the writers have actually provided in-canon explanations for things like the Klingon makeup - effectively making the season a long-form version of the Enterprise Season-4 two parter about the Klingon "augments."
If they're anything like me, they'll take the plot development at face value and carry on watching, if it continues to be entertaining that is.
I can't control the direction the show will take, but I can stop watching if the effort to put it on out weighs the reward for doing so, as happened with Enterprise. I made a point to watch the finale. Time wasted.
Either its fun to watch and debate and speculate, or its not, but if I ever feel like they're gonna pull a Battlestar, I'll spend my time on something else.
Accepting that the show is a reboot, is the key to enjoying it IMO.
Fixed that for you.
That's fine, but your mileage may vary.
For me, changing the visuals does not necessarily = reboot.
Abramsverse is a reboot due to major story changes. TMP was not a reboot just because the Klingons looked totally different and the Enterprise got a lot more sophisticated looking in a short period of in-universe time.
DSC so far is not a reboot (for me), even though the visuals have changed. A "reboot" to me connotes that the story being told takes place in a different fictional universe than the source material. Other than the visuals, the DSC story so far seems to be taking place in the TOS universe.
We did....for about 2 nanoseconds....and then we moved on.
It seems some people seem really hell-bent on an explanation for it, but those of us with an open mind accepted the fact that it was a positive change. Same with the look of the bridge. Different times, more budget.
Move. On.
Why does it bother you so much? TOS was made in the 60s when people had no concept of what today's future looked like.
