That's not how the Force works!Ther’s Like a millisecond difference. Close enough that it isn’t self Defense though, unless Han has the force
Also, it is very much in keep with the old west theme of the cantina.
so the producers and writers said that discovery will lead into TOS (60's aesthetics and all)...
- Thread starter crashchaos
- Start date
Also, it is very much in keep with the old west theme of the cantina.
Call it "canon" or "retcon" or even (what I would call it) changing the narrative, the point is that in the original version of the film we saw in 1977, not only did Han shoot first, Han was the ONLY one of the two to shoot. Greedo didn't get any shots off.
I had no problem with the original. Greedo was there to kill Han, and Han knew it; Judging by what Greedo was saying, Greedo was almost certainly a few seconds away from killing Han. So in the original, it really was self-defense, even if Greedo did not shoot.
I mean, did Han, Luke, and Leia wait for every storm trooper they killed to first shoot at them before our heroes felt that they could shoot back?
(and Mods...I apologize for the Star Wars talk, but it's associated with the TOS-R discussion).
Last edited:
Here's a headscratcher for you guys: Are the visuals from TOS-R considered to be canon now, or are the visuals from the original broadcast version still canon?
Answer: Yes.
Are we ready to collectively admit that the fans and TPTB have very different perspectives on what "canon" actually means and how to deal with it, or are we still going to pretend that Star Trek as a whole is some sort of futuristic biblical prophecy where only one possible chain of events, so described and depicted, could possibly be true?
Answer: Yes.
Are we ready to collectively admit that the fans and TPTB have very different perspectives on what "canon" actually means and how to deal with it, or are we still going to pretend that Star Trek as a whole is some sort of futuristic biblical prophecy where only one possible chain of events, so described and depicted, could possibly be true?
I think the waters between what is "canon" and what is adhering to "continuity" get muddied severely.
The only really useful definition of "canon" in regard to these franchises is what's accepted as an official part of the story. That is defined, to the extent that anyone really does so, by the IP holder.
"Canon" doesn't mean "consistent." Never did.
Star Trek canon contradicts itself. Always has.
"Canon" doesn't mean "consistent." Never did.
Star Trek canon contradicts itself. Always has.
I think Michael Okuda once said that both versions of each episode are canon and you just get to choose which one you prefer to watch and enjoy. Individual changes to certain episodes that canonize starship registry numbers of designs are now official while the original 1960s episodes now contain outdated ships that are no longer considered the official vessels, as when we see the Antares for the very first time in the Remastered "Charlie X" or the DY-100 shooting model reused as the S.S. Woden in "The Ultimate Computer" was replaced with a new, much more modern and believable 23rd century Federation ore carrier.
Other than the little details like seeing new Starbases and being able to see the registry numbers on other starships both versions of each episode are still canon.
Agreed. I particularly love how the phasers and communicators seem to take inspiration from their equivalents in both "The Cage" and the series proper and movies! I do indeed see what you mean about that corridor, and incidentally that particular shot with the civilian-clothed extras in the background is exactly what I thought of when I saw this scene in "Magic To Make The Sanest Man Go Mad" (DSC):As far as aesthetics go, I just want the Gold, Red and Blue uniforms back. The props are perfect. They look like 60's era props. I never had a problem with Discovery's interior. It looks fine for that era. In fact this screenshot reminds me of Discovery's corridors.
And maybe if Discovery gets severely damaged at one point they can give it rounded nacelles. but other than that, I'm fine with it's production design. I just want the uniforms to have the classic Gold, Red and Blue look.
Yet the interiors also remind me even more of TMP:
As for updating to round nacelles, while I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with that per se, they sort of seem to be more a feature of older ships. In addition to the TOS Enterprise, which was already at least twenty years old or so there, look at the Phoenix from First Contact, Friendship One from VGR, the Bonaventure from TAS, the Franklin from Beyond, and all the ENT ships. Of course, the Shenzhou was old and didn't have round nacelles, so it's not like there's any sort of strict rule about such things. (Except the one behind the scenes that ships on DSC can't have them thus far...which I personally suspect might be because they plan on eventually showing a ship like the Enterprise, and they want to keep its look unique with respect to others. We'll see.)
-MMoM
^The Enterprise in TOS was supposed to be a twenty-to-forty-year-old ship. So hell yes, it makes sense that a brand new cutting-edge vessel like Discovery might look more like the TMP update than the TV show version.
The Klingon ships look even worse in practically all respects but when it comes to the Federation vessels I like the Shepard-class more than any of the others. None of them are how I'd want to design them but a few look far better than others and while none of them look "correct" for 10 years prior to TOS I can swallow a few of the designs.
When people say this it always confuses me, because I don't recall ever seeing what any ships besides the Enterprise looked like ten years before TOS. We barely even saw what any ships besides the Enterprise and her sisters looked like during TOS. So what is your baseline for determining what would look "correct"? We had essentially no data until now.
EDITED TO ADD: Well, I guess there were the Kelvin ships. But people complained that they looked "wrong" too. And we don't know how old they were at the time, either. The Kelvin herself, which they resembled, was older by decades. And the DSC ships don't really look all that particularly inconsistent with those anyway.
-MMoM
Last edited:
Did we see anything besides Connies, shuttlecraft, and space stations in TOS? IIRC we don't actually see the Earth ship in "Charlie X."
Edit: Whoops! I forgot the robot freighter from "The Ultimate Computer," though that was just the Botany Bay with some bits stuck on.
Edit: Whoops! I forgot the robot freighter from "The Ultimate Computer," though that was just the Botany Bay with some bits stuck on.
Well TOS-R gave us these.
^Those ships could well all be as old as the Enterprise, or even older. And there is room for different design lineages with a variety of aesthetics in any time period. In the 24th century there is a lot of variety. There are designs almost a century old still in use, and the newer ships have a wide range of shapes and appearances. Besides the older designs, in TNG we see several ships that share aesthetics with the Galaxy, but then more or less contemporaneously we have ships like the Defiant and Voyager, all those diverse First Contact designs, etc.
-MMoM
-MMoM
In the article Frakes says that the style of STD in Canada and the directing of it is to be like the JJ Abrams Kelvin timeline. So, why wouldn't anyone admit that the ship aesthetics are also of that caliber and direction as well? We know they want that JJ Abrams Trek feel and look. It extended to the ships and tech in STD. Even the execs at CBS stated they wanted that feel. So as for them saying it's a TOS universe..they don't say which., as with multiple versions of reality, there are tons of TOS realities..this one is not the original given all we've seen. I still say it's a reboot. They should admit it and move on.
I noticed this on Enterprise episode "The Seventh" yesterday. Has anyone mentioned this before? Suprising that I've never seen anyone mention it.
MENOS: In my left front pocket, if you don't mind.
(Travis moves to oblige.)
T'POL: I wouldn't. It may be a weapon.
MENOS: It's a hologram of my family. They won't hurt you.
It looks like the same level of holography that's used in Discovery. Presumably this is vulcan technology and occurs over a century before Star Trek Discovery takes place. It's probably the most convincing evidence I've seen that makes the existence of the holographic tech used on Star Trek Discovery at least theoretically plausible.
MENOS: In my left front pocket, if you don't mind.
(Travis moves to oblige.)
T'POL: I wouldn't. It may be a weapon.
MENOS: It's a hologram of my family. They won't hurt you.
It looks like the same level of holography that's used in Discovery. Presumably this is vulcan technology and occurs over a century before Star Trek Discovery takes place. It's probably the most convincing evidence I've seen that makes the existence of the holographic tech used on Star Trek Discovery at least theoretically plausible.
ENT has plenty of references to holography so I'm not sure what makes this special. Of course it's plausible for tech to develop incrementally over 200 years, but you always preferred to pretend it isn't. Having a change of heart?I noticed this on Enterprise episode "The Seventh" yesterday. Has anyone mentioned this before? Suprising that I've never seen anyone mention it.
MENOS: In my left front pocket, if you don't mind.
(Travis moves to oblige.)
T'POL: I wouldn't. It may be a weapon.
MENOS: It's a hologram of my family. They won't hurt you.
It looks like the same level of holography that's used in Discovery. Presumably this is vulcan technology and occurs over a century before Star Trek Discovery takes place. It's probably the most convincing evidence I've seen that makes the existence of the holographic tech used on Star Trek Discovery at least theoretically plausible.
Similar threads
