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

[XCV330]

Actually, actor changes have never really bothered me. For whatever reason, I find it easy to accept them and move on. (Well, okay, Robin Curtis for Kirstie Alley was a bit of a stumbling block, but IMHO part of the reason there is that they changed the makeup too, and even her acting style, and she just seemed blatantly different.) With Dukat's daughter, honestly I never even noticed the change.

That was the problem with Robin Curtis' Saavik, and it wasn't even her fault. She was just not the same character. They should have given her a new name, and made her some other Vulcan

 

[CorporalClegg]

Nonsense. Star Trek canon is very explicitly not an intersubjective fan-made construct — it's dictated by the IP owners, limited to what has been depicted on screen. That's been reiterated on these boards countless times. That fact is the very reason alternative terms like "fanon" and "head canon" exist.

So your proof that it isn't fan-mad is to cite made up words populated on a fan site? Well done.

I can say with 100% certainty that the people at CBS don't give bunk about canon. The existence of this very thread (and the 100s out there like it) is evidence enough of that. Any perceived custodianship exists solely for the fandom's benefit.

Like when Kurtzman made big fanfare and assured everyone they were protecting the 'sanctity of the franchise' and then fumbled the ball in the opening seconds of the pilot. You can tell yourself they care all you want to, but the really don't. It's best to follow their lead.

I think you understand the words "canon" and "reboot" very differently from how other people do. Canon is the record of what is officially known about a fictional property. A reboot is a new version of a familiar property that is explicitly not constrained by previously depicted events involving that property.

While I appreciate condescending lectures as much as anyone, I'll have you know I understand the "canon" and "reboot" for exactly what they are: bullshit.

One word was born from a false pretense - in an attempt to literally give "truth" to myth. The other word is a made-up industry buzzword stolen from something completely unrelated almost arbitrarily - and it sounded cool - because it sort of had a similar meaning. But not really.

I don't know about anyone else, but I regularly reboot my computer once a day - sometimes more if I be-es-oh-dee that shit. But to put it another way: if the rigid absoluteness people often attribute its use in media where applied to computers, then the interwebz would cease to exist.

In prose fiction, the whole concept of "canon" pretty much traces back to Arthur Conan Doyle's stories of Sherlock Holmes. His 56 short stories and four novels are what we know, officially and authoritatively, about the lives of Holmes and Watson. Very few of those stories are "dependent" on earlier ones or have "direct influence" on later ones — there are occasional references, but those are usually cursory — yet they are universally understood to be about the same characters in the same reality.

False equivalency. Here's why:

Later tales by other authors, even if they do explicitly harken back to events from the originals, are homages or pastiches, not canon.

None the less, any self-contained Holmes story (Doyle's or other wise) is perfectly self-supporting and self-sustaining. They were the airport fodder of their time, meaning a person could pick any one of them up seemingly at random and enjoy it with full comprehension. And he or she didn't give two quacks about whether or not it matched up with past readings.

And books then - as they do now - that were part of a sequential story had a disclaimer or a number somewhere on the cover.

To put even more of a point on it, I own (or have read) several Holmes collections and the stories aren't constantly ordered.

In comics, Crisis on Infinite Earths was clearly a reboot of DC's shared universe. On the other hand, merely canceling, say, Justice League, and then restarting it later with a new #1 and a new creative team, is not a reboot, insofar as it acknowledges the previously published adventures of the Justice League.

I don't read comics, but I do enjoy most of the shows and films. Just trying to decipher the hellish messes that are the DC/Marvel Wikis when I want to learn about a new character that shows up has taught me all I'll ever need to know about "canon."

ST:TMP absolutely could not and would not have been the same movie without the original series preceding it. A great deal more time would have had to be spent on establishing the fictional world — the concepts of the UFP, Starfleet, warp drive, etc. — rather than having it understood from previous exposure. Most of the backstory and character dynamics were also previously established — the notions of Kirk looking back nostalgically on his five-year mission and wanting to retake the center seat, for instance, or of Spock giving up on pure logic and deciding to acknowledge his human side and his friendships, or of the Enterprise undergoing an elaborate refit, would have made no sense (or at least had no emotional resonance) had they not been preceded by the TV series. Had the movie been an actual reboot, it would have been told very differently, introducing the characters and concepts as fresh and new.

All the pertinent information is given to the audience throughout the film. There may not be a Gentle Ben has a sit down with Luke exposition scene, but it's all there through dialog and visual cues. Wise just had more confidence in his audience.

Your bias is getting in the way of seeing it objectively.

Yes, of course it's a sequel. That's so obvious I can't fathom that it even needs defending.

Obvious to whom, exactly? I punched "sequel" into Google, and this is what it spat out:

a [published...] work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.

The story certainly isn't a continuation. WOK is its own thing. Khan's motives are completely different. And the tone, scope, and theme of the two are completely different.

The fact that it provides cursory background exposition is just a matter of basic storytelling competence, and doesn't in any way, shape, or form mean the story in the film isn't directly related to the story that originally introduced Khan

The only thing that directly relates them is the character. But one could teach a whole course on why that isn't grounds for unified continuity.

and literally motivated by events in that episode.

Nope. Khan's motivation in WOK was driven by a catalytic event that happened off-screen, completely independent of the original episode - that symbolically and literally obliterated the original resolution. Hell, no one even knows if the person involved was McGivers. That's just common assumption.

In fact, I've long suspected WOK's script was a total hodgepodge of stuff Sowards had written (on his own or for Trek) and simply amended (By Bennett and Meyer) it to fit the Khan character once it was decided they wanted to use Monty. To that end, any connection to "Space Seed" is complete afterthought.

The very foundation of TNG as a series was as a successor to the original series, not a replacement for it.

Symbolically, I suppose, and superficially at best. The name was just that: a name. It was there solely to emphasis the new future tech was more future tech than the old future tech. And I guess to distinguish it from the movies. It certainly wasn't meant to slot it self in its proper place in future history.

Picard and Data served in the same Starfleet as Kirk and Spock.

How do you know it's the same Starfleet? No really. If you're going to hold it up to the canon viewfinder, how do you know it isn't the Starfleet of a parallel dimension, as canon clearly states such things exists - with similar but clearly and distinctly different Starfleets and Picards and Kirks. Just something to think about and maybe realize just how silly and fleeting it all is.

Previous characters literally appeared on-screen in TNG — Sarek in "Sarek," Spock in "Unification," Scotty in "Relics" — and brought with them everything we as viewers knew about their personal histories.

Ask yourself a question and be honest with yourself: Were those actor all chosen because they were imperative to the story, or where they just plucked for the ratings grab? "Sarek" was a beautiful Alzheimer's allegory, but it could have just as easily been told with a similar character from a similar race. Using Sarek was nice for the emotional resonance, but I have no doubt there were some youngsters out there who had no idea who he was and still had their heart-strings tugged.

Or what if Leonard hadn't been available and they used someone else. What that change the perception of continuity or impacted the weight of the story?

Scotty/Bones could have been any old boatman/brass. Their appearances were solely for the audiences's (and thus the cashiers' ) benefit.

Unification was born solely out of TNG. And Spock's actions and motivations in the episode where dictated by events/politics of the 24th century and had nothing to do with what he'd done in TOS/Films.

And, umm, the whole political context of Bajor as a previously occupied Cardassian holding, as established in TNG. Not to mention the character of Worf, who spent four entire seasons on the latter show.

Bajorans and Cardies were just picked from TNG and used as a launching board but where made to completely different. They obviously kept the Galor class because, you know, models are expensive. But clearly Alaimo's costumes and makeups were distinctly different. And Kira more or less contradicted everything Ro ever said about Bajoran culture.

It's a common understanding around here that TNG Worf and DSN Worf are two very different people.

No shared universe ever fits together perfectly, of course. (Even Conan Doyle's didn't, and he had the advantage of being a single author.) Humans (including storytellers) are imperfect, and so are their creations. But when the obvious intent is to engage in a process of cumulative worldbuilding and tell stories set in the resulting shared universe, the standard should be to expect it to fit together as well as reasonably possible — regardless of whether any particular story is a "direct sequel" or not — and claiming the shared universe never actually existed(!) is a completely specious excuse for falling short of that standard.

And this is the common mistake.

The Memory Alpha/Trek Encyclopedia are nothing more than your average coffee table reference. They aren't historical chronicles and shouldn't be treated as such - nor should any content creator ever beheld to such a standard.

Going back to the computer analogy, "reboot" was really the wrong word of choice. It's more like "rebuild" or reinstalling the OS, if you will. Lots of people do this on a regular basis - annually or biannually or whatever.

They backup all their stuff - say to the cloud - and it becomes one big giant nugget of their computing lives in a zip file.

They go through the reinstall and get a nice fresh OS. The registry is all nice and cleaned out and everything is running snappy. Now maybe they want to keep the same wallpaper. Or change it. And grab a new icon set while they're at it. They install some of the old programs they had and switch out some others for newer stuff.

Then once all the groundwork is laid down, they open their OneDrive and reach for the Canon.zip file and start ctrl+left clicking everything they want to keep and drag it over to their home folder. Everything else stays in that zip file, stashed away in the digital ether never to be heard from again.

Star Trek writers operate in pretty much the exact same way.

 

[BillJ]

Like when Kurtzman made big fanfare and assured everyone they were protecting the 'sanctity of the franchise' and then fumbled the ball in the opening seconds of the pilot. You can tell yourself they care all you want to, but the really don't. It's best to follow their lead.

Prime Directive? Pfft.

 

[fireproof78]

In fact, I've long suspected WOK's script was a total hodgepodge of stuff Sowards had written (on his own or for Trek) and simply amended (By Bennett and Meyer) it to fit the Khan character once it was decided they wanted to use Monty. To that end, any connection to "Space Seed" is complete afterthought.

Meyer freely admits that he drew upon about 8 drafts in order to assemble the new film.

The fact that we got a film at all is largely amazing.

Symbolically, I suppose, and superficially at best. The name was just that: a name. It was there solely to emphasis the new future tech was more future tech than the old future tech. And I guess to distinguish it from the movies. It certainly wasn't meant to slot it self in its proper place in future history.

From what I've read (and not on MA) GR was attempting to distance himself from TOS, and there was resistance to having Klingons and Vulcans on TNG. He didn't want references to TOS because he was moving away from it, both philosophically, visually and storywise.

Unification was born solely out of TNG. And Spock's actions and motivations in the episode where dictated by events/politics of the 24th century and had nothing to do with what he'd done in TOS/Films.

This is a point I disagree on, as Leonard Nimoy notes that the structure of the film was largely influenced by the episode citing specific events in the past. So, it's not entirely disparate.

 

[lawman]

It's a common understanding around here that TNG Worf and DSN Worf are two very different people.

Okay. So I'm basically of the opinion that every single thing you said in your post is wrong...

...but this particular bit really, really jumped out at me.

"Common understanding" among whom, exactly? I have literally never heard or read anyone suggest such a thing.

 

[garakvsneelix]

I put this into this thread, because I think, this is, where it belongs (while in the other thread, the discussion would be waaaay too off-topic):

They've already updated the look of the TOS era once, to make it look more in line with TNG. Once you've done it once, like changing the look of the Klingons, that kind of makes it less credible to complain when it's been done again.

Well, that's a point, yeah, but IMO there are a few limitations to be noticed:
- The different look of the Klingons can be seen as a result of the limited production value in 60's, so there's an extradiegetic expalanation for it. In the case of e. g. the hologram communication, I've never seen any production nor any narrative reason for this break with TOS (and DS9, partially). I know, they gave us a kind of explanation for that at the end of season 2, but I never understood, why they introduced the hologram communication in the first place at all.
- Your argument is a kind of "They did it wrong in the past and that is the reason, why it isn't wrong today". I know, that's not what you wanted to implicate, but at the end, this stands behind your statement.
- In the case of the Klingons, they gave us an explanation for the different looks in ENT. After this 'gap' was filled (after so, so many years), they just decided, that the Klingons should be a new look in the next show. And why? Just because no reason.

 

[Alan Roi]

I put this into this thread, because I think, this is, where it belongs (while in the other thread, the discussion would be waaaay too off-topic):



Well, that's a point, yeah, but IMO there are a few limitations to be noticed:
- The different look of the Klingons can be seen as a result of the limited production value in 60's, so there's an extradiegetic expalanation for it. In the case of e. g. the hologram communication, I've never seen any production nor any narrative reason for this break with TOS (and DS9, partially). I know, they gave us a kind of explanation for that at the end of season 2, but I never understood, why they introduced the hologram communication in the first place at all.
- Your argument is a kind of "They did it wrong in the past and that is the reason, why it isn't wrong today". I know, that's not what you wanted to implicate, but at the end, this stands behind your statement.
- In the case of the Klingons, they gave us an explanation for the different looks in ENT. After this 'gap' was filled (after so, so many years), they just decided, that the Klingons should be a new look in the next show. And why? Just because no reason.

Star Trek is art. There isn't exactly a right or wrong. When asked about changes re:TMP, Roddenberry said "It always looked that way."

Not to mention it took 20 years for the franchise to take a shot at explaining in ENT the "They always looked that way," because someone thought the augment virus was a neat idea.

I am pointing out that once a change is made in an ongoing series for aesthetic purposes or the the fact that more money is available then there ceases to be a right or wrong version, and just an old version and a new version. Claiming there is a "right" version and a "wrong" version is the problem, IMO.

 

[garakvsneelix]

Claiming there is a "right" version and a "wrong" version is the problem, IMO.

Yep, that's something I would sign, too. But beside the categories of "right" and "wrong", there's another category for me: the canges I understand (because of productional, aesthetic, narrative or 'intradiegetic reasons) and the changes where I don't see any reason for them than "Well, we could do it, so we did it". And while this is not "wrong" in a mathematical way, it is something, where I as a recipient can say: Well, this doesn't convince me, I'm not in.

 

[thribs]

It should. I mean what’s the point of making a show in that time then?

 

[fireproof78]

It should. I mean what’s the point of making a show in that time then?

To tell stories about those characters.

 

[thribs]

To tell stories about those characters.

It’s not like those “stories” had to be told in that era.

 

[fireproof78]

It’s not like those “stories” had to be told in that era.

Spock and Pike and Sarek?

 

[thribs]

Spock and Pike and Sarek?

They could easily be replaced with other people. They were just in it to grab viewers anyway.

 

[fireproof78]

They could easily be replaced with other people. They were just in it to grab viewers anyway.

Maybe, maybe not. I think Sarek was not replaceable.

 

[thribs]

Sarek could be any respected Vulcan ambassador. He was only used because of name recognition.

 

[fireproof78]

Sarek could be any respected Vulcan ambassador. He was only used because of name recognition.

I don't completely agree. I think it offered the opportunity to explore a character who largely had been seen through the lens of Spock, rather than entirely on his own. I think that Sarek's senior status, as well as being familiar, offered the opportunity to be introduced to this world, while being introduced to new characters and situations.

I think the Klingon War offered a more chaotic environment, a less well known battle, even if the outcome was known. It was much like Unification, and how it tied directly in to The Undiscovered Country. TNG's peace with the Klingons was a foregone conclusion, but we didn't know how.

Now, I will completely grant that the MU and the Spore drive were not as necessary and certainly add to the argument that future may have been better. But, I think for the characters and the stories desired to tell then the less known pre-TOS era was an appropriate setting for the story and the characters.

Mileage will vary.

 

[Dukhat]

Spock and Pike and Sarek?

I once came up with a thought experiment where, instead of DSC being a ten-years-before-TOS prequel, it was instead a twenty-year sequel to TUC, and the Sarek character was replaced with Spock at that point in time. Burnham was not his adopted sister, but rather his adopted daughter (since he had a penchant for sponsoring young people like Saavik and Valeris unlike what we knew about Sarek.) Ethan Peck’s Spock would instead be Spock’s son, a new character. The motive for the Klingon war was that they felt that the Federation’s aid after the Praxis incident had made them look weak, so T’Kuvma had Azetbur assasinated and took over as leader. Pretty much everything else that happened in the show could have fit in perfectly post-2300, with the exception of the Enterprise and Pike, which could easily have been replaced with the Enterprise-B or C, with a new captain at the helm.

 

[fireproof78]

I once came up with a thought experiment where, instead of DSC being a ten-years-before-TOS prequel, it was instead a twenty-year sequel to TUC, and the Sarek character was replaced with Spock at that point in time. Burnham was not his adopted sister, but rather his adopted daughter (since he had a penchant for sponsoring young people like Saavik and Valeris unlike what we knew about Sarek.) Ethan Peck’s Spock would instead be Spock’s son, a new character. The motive for the Klingon war was that they felt that the Federation’s aid after the Praxis incident had made them look weak, so T’Kuvma had Azetbur assasinated and took over as leader. Pretty much everything else that happened in the show could have fit in perfectly post-2300, with the exception of the Enterprise and Pike, which could easily have been replaced with the Enterprise-B or C, with a new captain at the helm.

Has potential. Though, I personally think that Sarek works better as the father figure, largely because Spock signing on to the destruction of Kronos to end the war would be odd, to say the least. So, clearly some other modifications would need to be made to happen. Does this mean we would get the wedding of Sarek's son Picard alludes to?

Though, as per usual, I would forgo the MU in any reimagining of DSC.

 

[Dukhat]

Has potential. Though, I personally think that Sarek works better as the father figure, largely because Spock signing on to the destruction of Kronos to end the war would be odd, to say the least. So, clearly some other modifications would need to be made to happen. Does this mean we would get the wedding of Sarek's son Picard alludes to?

Though, as per usual, I would forgo the MU in any reimagining of DSC.

The Amanda character would of course instead be Spock’s wife, and I suppose there could be a flashback to their wedding, but that’s not really important to the story.

 

[fireproof78]

The Amanda character would of course instead be Spock’s wife, and I suppose there could be a flashback to their wedding, but that’s not really important to the story.

No, but a fun bit of fan service As well as resolve an apparent discontinuity.