Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

I mean, if you can't satisfy both fan positions, why not just leave them out entirely, and let fans imagine?

There are fans who don't see any problem with, say, a Constitution-class vessel appearing just as it was in DS9's Tribble episode, or ENT's mirror episode, in Discovery. Either they see it as just a harmless homage, or something completely capable of fitting with modern aesthetics with a minor bit of suspension of disbelief (we aren't talking about something that was ever as crummy as Lost in Space here). And there are fans who call that same ship incongruous and an affront to their senses, a horrible example of 60s aesthetics that should be burnt from their retinas. The two will apparently never come to terms.

1966 - TOS Opening Credits

1996 - DS9: "Trials and Tribbleations"

2005 - ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly"

2018 - DSC: "Despite Yourself"

In the latest episode, a starship appears on a computer screen.

We have seen this starship in three previous episodes, spread over TOS and ENT, and 40 years.

It looked the same in all of those episodes, and a Constitution class appeared unchanged in DS9.

But, the starship looked visually different, and not that great either.

So, assuming this isn't a red herring, was there really any need to change visual continuity at all when the scene could have just featured the characters talking in front of a blank wall with no visual cue whatsoever? Or could have just featured them talking in front of a wire-frame graphic/cutaway deck-plan that was deliberately ambiguous? Is DSC following a standing policy of deliberately changing visual continuity, where previous Trek shows felt no need?

1968, the Klingon battlecruiser:

1979, the higher detailed Klingon battlecruiser:

1987-2001, the Klingon battlecruiser is used in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT:

2009, the Kelvin timeline's battlecruiser:

2017, the DSC battlecruiser:

If DS9 and ENT didn't really feel the need to change visual continuity, why does DSC potentially feel the need, rather than say, just leaving the issue alone entirely? Do the showrunners feel older designs may turn people off, and if so, why not just omit them? Or is this a conscious choice to make Star Trek a much less visually coherent franchise, less like Star Wars and more like Doctor Who?

 

[Timo]

It would seem that continuity across a long-running franchise, including visual continuity, is actually a rising trend nowadays. Case in point, the aforementioned Doctor Who, which in its newer incarnation is going out of its way to refer back to old adventures and bits of trivia with maximal specificity - and to bring back old visuals as well.

Why is this? Because the technology is finally here to make it possible to affordably reproduce 1960s or 1980s "classics"/monstrosities in the first place? Because there's a market in longterm fandom, heretofore unrealized? Because yesterday's fans now produce this stuff?

Either way, DSC deviating from the path comes as quite a surprise. Is Trek late in catching the nineties-noughties boom of "rebooting" that has already passed for good?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[CaptainMurdock]

It would be nice if they did.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

It would seem that continuity across a long-running franchise, including visual continuity, is actually a rising trend nowadays. Case in point, the aforementioned Doctor Who, which in its newer incarnation is going out of its way to refer back to old adventures and bits of trivia with maximal specificity - and to bring back old visuals as well.

Why is this? Because the technology is finally here to make it possible to affordably reproduce 1960s or 1980s "classics"/monstrosities in the first place? Because there's a market in longterm fandom, heretofore unrealized? Because yesterday's fans now produce this stuff?

Either way, DSC deviating from the path comes as quite a surprise. Is Trek late in catching the nineties-noughties boom of "rebooting" that has already passed for good?

Timo Saloniemi

Great points here - actually Doctor Who is, if anything, starting to use more and more straight-up callbacks to the classic series, and the changes in Discovery almost resemble the 90s/00s boom in visual reboots (i.e. 90s Lost in Space with Matt LeBlanc). I agree that Hollywood is generally moving in the direction of recognising the value of visual continuity - i.e. Rogue One, Blade Runner 2049, etc.

 

[bookworm8571]

I don’t particularly care. The technology wasn’t there 50 years ago to do this show. It would look ridiculous if they made it look like original Trek.

 

[Timo]

The thing is, it looks ridiculous no matter what. That's not just science fiction for you - all things just get dated visually, typically in a matter of a couple of years.

Two ways of coping: don't expect to extend your appeal beyond a couple of years, or embrace retro. Long-running franchises have a bit of a problem with the former, though: not long ago, they had to remain on air for about seven years to be profitable, and even today they risk having the next two- or three-year spinoff bomb if the current one either doesn't remain well received or fails to be visually associated with the new thing.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

I don’t particularly care. The technology wasn’t there 50 years ago to do this show. It would look ridiculous if they made it look like original Trek.

Which part?

I mean, if they replicated a 60s stage set, yes.

But, a ship?

It's a different thing entirely - a prop in space is different from something a character interacts with - for example, you could blow a hole in the side of a CGI model of the original Enterprise, and have people and equipment fly out into space - something that couldn't be done in 1966, but which would make the scale and detail of a ship more apparent.

 

[bookworm8571]

I don’t care what the ship looks like. I’m watching for the story and the characters. Ship design doesn’t interest me.

 

[BillJ]

You should honor what came before, which Discovery clearly doesn't care to do. They threw us a curveball with retro props, then blew the doors off by changing everything else. Something simple, like the Mirror Empire emblem wasn't dated in any way. But we're supposed to believe that the emblem was one way, changed to another then changed back. Or the D-7, there was nothing dated about the design.

Trying to treat it as a reboot doesn't really work either, because they are so deep in characters and situations that have already been sorted that there is no real drama involved.

At this point, I just treat it as very, very expensive fan fiction.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

I don’t care what the ship looks like. I’m watching for the story and the characters. Ship design doesn’t interest me.

Fair enough. I just wanted to clarify what you meant by "made it look like original Trek".

After all, there is nuance in terms of which parts do, and which parts don't.

The reason I asked is, in quite a lot of threads like this, people use that sentence, almost word-for-word pejoratively. The chain of conversation usually goes something like person A). "I don't think the TOS ships look that bad, you could fit it in DSC", person B). "it's stupid to make things look like the 1960s". Obviously person A was never arguing for the replication of everything, they were arguing just specifically about one prop in a highly specific context.

You should honor what came before, which Discovery clearly doesn't care to do. They threw us a curveball with retro props, then blew the doors off by changing everything else. Something simple, like the Mirror Empire emblem wasn't dated in any way. But we're supposed to believe that the emblem was one way, changed to another then changed back. Or the D-7, there was nothing dated about the design.

Trying to treat it as a reboot doesn't really work either, because they are so deep in characters and situations that have already been sorted that there is no real drama involved.

At this point, I just treat it as very, very expensive fan fiction.

Yeah, in the latest episode that was something I just couldn't really see any point to. Changing the Mirror Universe's Terran Empire symbol, which looked fine. It's not that I was particularly bothered, it's more like I couldn't fathom the point at all. The new one was, if anything, less distinct.

 

[GeekUSACarl]

Good tv is good tv so no they don't need to. It'd be kinda cool to see though. I think it shows a different side of creativity to work that kinda stuff in, but, so far one of discovery's biggest strengths is not "chasing" past trek so.... careful what we wish for

 

[CorporalClegg]

Nope.

/Next thread.

 

[INACTIVERedDwarf]

Good tv is good tv so no they don't need to. It'd be kinda cool to see though. I think it shows a different side of creativity to work that kinda stuff in, but, so far one of discovery's biggest strengths is not "chasing" past trek so.... careful what we wish for

It seems to me that Trek's issues were "intangible" rather than "tangible":

- Intangible: bad writing and stories

- Tangible: artistic design, props, sets, etc

The thing that was dragging Trek down was the writing, characterisation, formation of alien societies, earnestness of it's material.... but visual design was fine... even at it's worst, it was at least competent. So, the show should definitely not chase previous Trek in terms of intangibles, like the propensity of past shows to totally reduce alien societies to a stereotype, but visual callbacks are fine. E.G. redesign the Klingons with heavier makeup, but show a few with hair and beards (just like Into Darkness).

It's just a simple thing, but would make a lot of difference; allow fans who desire to engage with the show on a different level to suspend their disbelief a little more, in terms of these aliens being part of the same culture. Showrunners don't have to ape things exactly (ENT was occasionally guilty of this, to the point things looked implausibly TNG-era at times). But a more nuanced blend just seems to be obvious to me; Star Wars does it for example.

 

[Nyotarules]

no they don't need to but they can if they want to and if they choose not to it does not bother me that much.

 

[EnderAKH]

Which part?

I mean, if they replicated a 60s stage set, yes.

But, a ship?

It's a different thing entirely - a prop in space is different from something a character interacts with - for example, you could blow a hole in the side of a CGI model of the original Enterprise, and have people and equipment fly out into space - something that couldn't be done in 1966, but which would make the scale and detail of a ship more apparent.

Yes, a ship. The Enterprise looks like a ship designed in the 60s. Do you know why? It was a ship that was designed in the 60s, and on a TV budget no less. Some people think that look is "timeless" in some way, others of us look at it and think "well that looks dated because it was designed in the 60s and ships designed now look completely different than ships designed then." And they can't avoid it because they have made the Defiant a central part of the 2nd half of the season. The only way to avoid it would have been to tell a different story, but this is the story they want to tell.

 

[Greg Cox]

Chalk it up to "artistic license" and let it go. Expecting the new shows and movies to slavishly replicate the art direction of decades gone by is just asking for frustration. Activate your "willing suspension of disbelief" circuits and pretend that things always looked this way, just like we did when the Klingons first got a makeover way back in '79, or when Kirstie Alley magically transformed into Robin Curtis.

STAR TREK is not a historical period piece.

 

[shatastrophic]

I mean, if you can't satisfy both fan positions, why not just leave them out entirely, and let fans imagine?

There are fans who don't see any problem with, say, a Constitution-class vessel appearing just as it was in DS9's Tribble episode, or ENT's mirror episode, in Discovery. Either they see it as just a harmless homage, or something completely capable of fitting with modern aesthetics with a minor bit of suspension of disbelief (we aren't talking about something that was ever as crummy as Lost in Space here). And there are fans who call that same ship incongruous and an affront to their senses, a horrible example of 60s aesthetics that should be burnt from their retinas. The two will apparently never come to terms.

1966 - TOS Opening Credits

1996 - DS9: "Trials and Tribbleations"

2005 - ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly"

2018 - DSC: "Despite Yourself"

In the latest episode, a starship appears on a computer screen.

We have seen this starship in three previous episodes, spread over TOS and ENT, and 40 years.

It looked the same in all of those episodes, and a Constitution class appeared unchanged in DS9.

But, the starship looked visually different, and not that great either.

So, assuming this isn't a red herring, was there really any need to change visual continuity at all when the scene could have just featured the characters talking in front of a blank wall with no visual cue whatsoever? Or could have just featured them talking in front of a wire-frame graphic/cutaway deck-plan that was deliberately ambiguous? Is DSC following a standing policy of deliberately changing visual continuity, where previous Trek shows felt no need?

1968, the Klingon battlecruiser:

1979, the higher detailed Klingon battlecruiser:

1987-2001, the Klingon battlecruiser is used in TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT:

2009, the Kelvin timeline's battlecruiser:

2017, the DSC battlecruiser:

If DS9 and ENT didn't really feel the need to change visual continuity, why does DSC potentially feel the need, rather than say, just leaving the issue alone entirely? Do the showrunners feel older designs may turn people off, and if so, why not just omit them? Or is this a conscious choice to make Star Trek a much less visually coherent franchise, less like Star Wars and more like Doctor Who?

This is what Im talking about in another thread concerning whom the Emperor will be...it may be a prequel...but whose to say this is the MU we know or that the prime universe in the show is just the prime universe for the purposes of the show? Why can't every universe have a mirror one? If Discovery is in its own prime universe which doesn't negate it being a prequel...then it should have its own mirror. This is why the Defiant has the same quantum signature but looks different. It is a way for something new while at the same time not stepping on what came before...I agree, why just blatantly change something because of contemporary technology? In Rogue One those Star Destroyers looked better than they ever have while looking the exact same.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?

No. Next question?

 

[Lord Garth]

Until I see something that shows otherwise, I'm treating DSC as if it's a visual reboot.

DS9 and VOY were an extension of TNG, so that's why everything from 1987-2001 had the same look. You could stretch it out to 1979 and 2005 with the first movie and the end of ENT. Since there were a lot of the same sets carried over, though modified, and several of the same personnel.

 

[ITDUDE]

Don't we have like a zillion of these threads already?
Let STD be what it wants to be be. Reboot, re-imagining, whatever. Just let it be.