The only viewers that would be confused by such things don't know what the fuck "canon" is to begin with.
Condescending much? For what it's worth, I do know what canon is, but it has nothing to do with this discussion. The reason I said the concept of a "visual reboot" introduces confusion has to do with
continuity. There is a strong argument to be made that for a fictional reality whose original and natural home is on screen, visual continuity is every bit as meaningful and important as narrative continuity. Trek has traditionally treated them that way.
At the moment, by way of defending DSC, an awful lot of people are treating them as separable, with the visual aspect implicitly less meaningful... but there's really precious little underlying logic for that, beyond "it justifies what the producers wanted to do."
The word you are looking for is primitive. The effects are primitive compared to today. Cost has nothing to do with it.
Thank you! I'm tired of seeing people say TOS was cheap. Season one was budgeted at $190k per episode, for heaven's sake, one of the most expensive shows on the air at the time and equivalent to about $1.4m in current dollars.
Primitive is another matter... the state of the art for production values and special effects is always a moving target. Of course computers have radically redefined what's possible, but it's important to remember that there was no such thing as CGI in the 1960s when TOS was produced. (Nor, for that matter, in the '70s when
Star Wars was produced. Nor in the '80s when TNG was produced. And it was still new and relatively "primitive" itself in the '90s, as seen in
Babylon 5.) It seems sad to me, therefore, that some contemporary viewers apparently dismiss anything that's not CGI as unacceptably "primitive."
Even if (some) viewers do that, however, it's important to recognize the distinction between
design on the one hand, and
production values and FX on the other. While the two aren't completely separate — choices about the former will unavoidably be influenced by what's possible with the latter — they're certainly not the same thing. Almost any sort of design can be realized either skillfully and convincingly, or awkwardly and unconvincingly. I think an awful lot of present-day CGI — including much of what's on DSC, sad to say — actually looks
less convincingly realistic than old-style "primitive" effects shot with physical models and lighting.
As for the design work on DSC... well, it's been a mixed bag, and IMHO some of it's been awful and a lot more of it has been merely derivative. TOS, on the other hand, has long been recognized for its consistently brilliant, well-thought-out designs.
And the Mike Okuda timeline approved by Paramount as official has "Obsession" taking place in 2268, making the dikironium cloud creature attack on the Farragut in 2257.
Hmm. Is that timeline available online anywhere? I do have the book version from
wayyyyy back when, but that was compiled and published while the Berman-era shows were still in production and a lot of things (like, e.g., the FYM ending in 2270) had not yet been established.
At any rate, I don't see why "Obsession" would fall in 2268 in anyone's timeline. If we stipulate that the FYM ran (roughly) from 2265 to 2270, and that TOS and TAS comprise (roughly) years one-through-three and year four of that FYM, then it stands to reason that a second-season episode like "Obsession" would fall in 2267. If we take an even simpler approach and assume, per the dictate from Roddenberry's office during the TNG years, that TOS episodes take place "exactly 300 years" after broadcast... well, that one was
early second season, and aired in December 1967.
(And yes, these heuristics are simplifications. I actually have a much more detailed timeline laid out in a spreadsheet that takes account of many more bits of canonical evidence. FWIW, that also puts "Obsession" in 2267.)
No, they were not as consistent as we would like to believe. There's a reason the acronym "YATI" exists...
I've been chatting on the internet for years, and I've literally never encountered that acronym. Google is no help either. Pray tell, what does it mean?...
It looks to me to be about a 50% increase in the Enterprise but no more, which is around 450m in total give or take... The angles used in the sequence helps the Enterprise a lot as its closer to the screen and thus looks bigger.
I really hope that they haven't changed the size of the ship. As others have posted, the window arrangements make it seem unlikely. There's no good reason to do so; it looks just fine on screen with
Discovery, as show, and it's not as if we're ever likely to get a clear side-by-side shot establishing the ships' relative sizes, and even if we do who actually cares if its dimensions are smaller? What's important to me is that it contains the same interiors we saw on the original version all those years ago, and is the right size to do so.
It might be buried in this thread. But has anyone else noticed the Enterprise has the Bridge "window" as well?
I didn't see it, but then we didn't get a good look at the top of the ship. I really hope it doesn't have one. IMHO "bridge windows" were one of the most colossally idiotic changes introduced by the Abrams Trek films, both aesthetically and logically, and I have no idea at all why DSC has chosen to retcon them into the main Trek universe.
One way or another, we're getting Captain Burnham of the Discovery sooner or later. She's already got her Commander rank back. The command chair is unavoidable. She may even be ahead of Saru now, since she served as exec for 7 years.
No, she served on the
Shenzou for seven years
total. Presumably she worked her way up through the ranks. If we can trust the info the producers gave David Mack when he wrote
Desperate Hours, she was actually only XO for about a year before the beginning of DSC.
The Walker class also looks FAR more advanced than the Constituion class. So either dial the Walker class design back, or dial the Constitution up.
How are you using the word "advanced" here? Certainly the
Shenzou has far more complicated (and IMHO unattractive) hull detailing. But what about that is necessarily advanced?
