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

[jaime]

No, it is not. Its 2256, not 1966. It should not have cheap, old, campy looking sets and tech powered by vacuum tubes and resisters



It stuck out at me hard.It was something that pulled me out of the story every single time.



It and Kevlin are not alike visually at all. They do share a modern filming style, but the visuals are not the same.



Hell No, it looked cheap, old and goofy. Like someone put modern paint on a model T and claimed it new and high tech. Only a subset of trek fans liked it. A small, but loud and aging out subset.

Remember the old TOS tech manual? It’s stated those tubes and resistors were just there to hide the future tech from its own past. They don’t ‘really’ look like that.
That’s the approach people are talking about, and with the communicators and phasers especially, that’s the approach DSC is taking.
That’s what we mean by period piece. Not slavish adherence to sixties production standards..we have STC for that.

 

[jaime]

Tch. Arsenal fans.

 

[BillJ]

And to be very clear: Never did I imply that the old visuals were bad or that their creators were "dunsels." I grew up on TOS and still love how it looks. Just saying that the talented new production folks shouldn't be wedded to the work of the equally talented production folks long ago.

Shouldn't we give and want the same leeway to new writers? Allow them to be creative and not chained to creative choices made twenty, thirty or forty years ago? An example would be you could do a lot of creative things with Sarek in an alternate universe/reboot that you simply can't do in a continuation. Much of his story and ultimate fate have been written. Same with the spore drive (we already know it can't work in the Prime timeline) and the Klingon war (all the pieces have to be put back in the box because we know the Federation and Klingons aren't at war in the beginnning of TOS).

Probably why I find the Mirror episodes more engaging than the Prime episodes. There's an air of "anything can happen".

 

[Hythlodeus]

Shouldn't we give and want the same leeway to new writers? Allow them to be creative and not chained to creative choices made twenty, thirty or forty years ago? An example would be you could do a lot of creative things with Sarek in an alternate universe/reboot that you simply can't do in a continuation. Much of his story and ultimate fate have been written. Same with the spore drive (we already know it can't work in the Prime timeline) and the Klingon war (all the pieces have to be put back in the box because we know the Federation and Klingons aren't at war in the beginnning of TOS).

Probably why I find the Mirror episodes more engaging than the Prime episodes. There's an air of "anything can happen".

exactly. they should have the same creative freedom as the writers of the 60s where every episode it was totally unknown if the main cast made it out of the episode alive. oh, I cried bitter tears when Sulu was shot in the head by Mudd, when Uhura was impaled by Khan and when they even killed off Kirk, trying to rescue Edith Keeler. Remember the explosion in which Checkov was maimed? I'm so glad those writers weren't bound by an ultimate fate that everyone had to survive and anything could happen...

 

[BillJ]

exactly. they should have the same creative freedom as the writers of the 60s where every episode it was totally unknown if the main cast made it out of the episode alive. oh, I cried bitter tears when Sulu was shot in the head by Mudd, when Uhura was impaled by Khan and when they even killed off Kirk, trying to rescue Edith Keeler. Remember the explosion in which Checkov was maimed? I'm so glad those writers weren't bound by an ultimate fate that everyone had to survive and anything could happen...

You're right. It will be much more satisfying to find out what flavor of Plomeek soup Sarek favors than doing anything truly interesting with the character because his story has already been written.

I can't say how people in the 1960's saw Star Trek and its continuing cast. Or if they ever had the fear of a character actually being changed. TV was simply different. I find it amusing that some folks are bound and determined to say 1960's TV won't work today but then use it as an excuse for storytelling choices of a 21st century TV series. When the explosion went off in Sarek's shuttle, there was simply no drama to any of it.

If they wanted it to be Prime, they simply could've told a story without characters like Sarek, the Spore drive and Klingon war. That way they could've maintained a bit of mystery about the outcomes and ultimate fate of the storylines.

 

[Hythlodeus]

you do know that the 'drama' came from the Burnham-Sarek relationship, right? Not from the suspense if Sarek survives.

 

[Greg Cox]

This is pretty funny considering part of Greg's living comes from writing these characters and using the props, sets and situations created by the people you think he's being dismissive of. Greg is a major fan of TOS and it shows in his work..

To be fair, I realized after I posted that "window dressing" could be taken as disparaging. I was just trying to make a distinction between the story and the production design.

As I like to say, "Carmen" is still "Carmen" even if the Met changes the sets and costumes. Doesn't mean that talented people didn't put their heart and soul into designing the costumes and backdrops and such. But the play is one thing and the production design is something else.

 

[BillJ]

you do know that the 'drama' came from the Burnham-Sarek relationship, right? Not from the suspense if Sarek survives.

What drama? And I'm not the only one who has asked that question. By a long shot.

 

[Longinus]

To be fair, I realized after I posted that "window dressing" could be taken as disparaging. I was just trying to make a distinction between the story and the production design.

As I like to say, "Carmen" is still "Carmen" even if the Met changes the sets and costumes. Doesn't mean that talented people didn't put their heart and soul into designing the costumes and backdrops and such. But the play is one thing and the production design is something else.

I understand what you're saying, and it kind of depends on the person whether one can see things that way. I'm very visual person and to me how the things look is pretty damn essential part of the setting.

 

[BillJ]

I understand what you're saying, and it kind of depends on the person whether one can see things that way. I'm very visual person and to me how things look is pretty damn essential part of the setting.

I also think there is a difference between something that stands on its own, and something that is supposed to be part of a larger universe.

 

[Hythlodeus]

hmmm... does that mean that when Alfonso Cùaron took over the Harry Potter franchise from Chris Columbus in Prisoner of Azkaban and changed the visual aesthetics of the Wizarding World, changed Professor What'shisname, you know, Warwick Davies' character, look and make up design, made the whole setting darker, changed the school uniforms from thos dreadful robes to almost standard uniforms and updated Hogwarts...that PoA was a reboot?
Obviously, the movie was part of a larger universe. It didn't stand on its own. There was stuff that came before. But it looked different.

 

[BillJ]

hmmm... does that mean that when Alfonso Cùaron took over the Harry Potter franchise from Chris Columbus in Prisoner of Azkaban and changed the visual aesthetics of the Wizarding World, changed Professor What'shisname, you know, Warwick Davies' character, look and make up design, made the whole setting darker, changed the school uniforms from thos dreadful robes to almost standard uniforms and updated Hogwarts...that PoA was a reboot?
Obviously, the movie was part of a larger universe. It didn't stand on its own. There was stuff that came before. But it looked different.

Did they take a movie with all the changes and then drop it in the middle of earlier films then tell everyone it was all the same? I really don't know as I don't read or watch Harry Potter.

 

[Greg Cox]

I understand what you're saying, and it kind of depends on the person whether one can see things that way. I'm very visual person and to me how the things look is pretty damn essential part of the setting.

I confess I'm not very visual at all. I see other fans getting all worked up about this-or-that-iteration of the Starship Enterprise ("Ohmigod, it's hideous!") and honestly don't see what the big deal is. It's got a saucer and two nacelles in more or less the right place? It's the Enterprise. Ditto for that schematic of the Defiant that popped up on the screen a few episode ago. Looked like a Constitution-class ship to me, more or less.

Then again, I couldn't tell the difference between a Ford or a Chevy if my life depended on it. . . .

And that' s generally my attitude toward DISCO. It's set in the Prime universe, more or less, which is good enough for me.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

It is a bit like how I really don't get how some people seem to be clinically unable to understand the difference between aesthetics and the effects quality, even though we have pretty much a perfect example of how to update the latter while maintaining the former in the form of Discovery props.

Yeah, the TOS ship design was a single type tossed as soon as budget allowed. It has a tiny impact on over all ship design

Remember the old TOS tech manual? It’s stated those tubes and resistors were just there to hide the future tech from its own past. They don’t ‘really’ look like that.
.

Yeah, I almost went blind eyerolling at that bit of nonsense.

 

[Longinus]

hmmm... does that mean that when Alfonso Cùaron took over the Harry Potter franchise from Chris Columbus in Prisoner of Azkaban and changed the visual aesthetics of the Wizarding World, changed Professor What'shisname, you know, Warwick Davies' character, look and make up design, made the whole setting darker, changed the school uniforms from thos dreadful robes to almost standard uniforms and updated Hogwarts...that PoA was a reboot?
Obviously, the movie was part of a larger universe. It didn't stand on its own. There was stuff that came before. But it looked different.

Well, those were still pretty minor differences compared to what we're talking about here. And yes, Flitwick suddenly getting about 50 years younger really bugged me. I totally went to trekkie mode and tried to come up with an explanation for that. (Maybe it was magic, except there really is not that sort of powerful de-aging magic, otherwise all powerful wizards would always be young. Or maybe the earlier older look was actually due some magical accident that aged him, and he later got cured back to his real age. Or maybe there are actually two Flintwicks, junior and senior...)

 

[Hythlodeus]

but the thing is, the changed look of Hogwarts is very similar to the changed look of a Connie, isn't it? It's not a big difference, it is clearly meant to be Hogwarts, although the castle looked different before. Come to think of it Hogwarts to a Potterfan is very similar to the Enterprise to a Trekkie. It is more than just a place, a setting for stories. It is a beloved character itself. And now that character had suddenly been recast.

Sure, Flitwick (yeah, that was his name, thank you) looked totally different and Dumbledore, well Richard Harries died, but why change the visuals of the character so drastically and even Hogwarts was new...

But never have I read 'reboot'. Everyone was more or less on board with it as the direct sequel to Chamber of Secrets and Philosopher's Stone.

So yeah, Connies or Starfleet ships in general might look different, the Klingons have new make up, just like Warwick Davies had, the uniforms changed just like the school uniforms of the Kids or Dumbledor's look, the show looks less like it was made in the 60s, just like PoA looked less like a kids movie than the first two movies, but nothing has really changed. It is still the same continuity

 

[137th Gebirg]

So it wouldn't catch your attention if they specifically set a movie or series between Superman and Superman II in-universe, with a bunch of changes that don't really fit? Like everyone having cell phones and the internet? Or the Soviet Union being gone? Or Lex Luthor being Asian?

I think it's one thing to say "Discovery is Star Trek". I can readily agree with that sentiment. It's another to say "Discovery is Star Trek ten years before TOS in-universe". That one strikes me as wildly inaccurate based on what they've shown on-screen. Everyone's mileage will obviously vary.

Wouldn't care if Lex were recast as Asian. I got over the shock of such things back in NuBSG 2003. Pretty commonplace these days.

 

[BillJ]

Wouldn't care if Lex were recast as Asian. I got over the shock of such things back in NuBSG 2003. Pretty commonplace these days.

Even if it was dropped between two movies where the character was an American in-universe?

 

[137th Gebirg]

Asian American?

 

[Nerys Myk]

Superman and Superman II in-universe, with a bunch of changes that don't really fit? Like everyone having cell phones and the internet? Or the Soviet Union being gone? Or Lex Luthor being Asian?

Would not bother me in the least.