"Probably"
As there are on Voyager.
Our world isn't Star Trek's.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
That depends on your own personal individualised head canon.
Not like the bulky primitive ones on discovery.
And they could insert 1960's Ricardo Montalban into Into Darkness.
Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Depends on the needs of the plot.
Yes, Doctor Who appeals to all ages. (That used to be true of Star Trek as well.) That hardly means it doesn't take itself seriously; if you think so you haven't watched the show much.
Moreover, I keep seeing this point raised again and again whenever someone offers examples of Trek (or any other show) actually respecting its past... it's just an homage, just a tribute, just a nostalgic indulgence... as if that has some sort of self-evident meaning. It doesn't. These are still episodes of the show, meant to be just as entertaining for the audience and just as real for the characters as any other episodes... IOW, to be treated as canon.
And anyway, what is an homage except something made by people who love the show, for people who love the show? There's nothing wrong or un-serious about that; indeed it's a vibe that DSC could benefit by capturing a bit more often.
And what is the appearance of the original Enterprise at the end of the DSC season (and presumably beginning of the next) as well, if not an homage? After all, it's not as if Pike and his ship are going to take over the show; nobody's expecting them to be there for more than one or two episodes. So even if "homage" was the excuse for the looks of the ship and the bridge and the uniforms in all those episodes in earlier Trek series (and of the Daleks and the Cybermen and the Tardis and so on in all those Doctor Who episodes), how is what DSC is doing now in any way different? It's not as if redesigning the Enterprise somehow marks the show as More Serious.
It would have been interesting if Sarek had been pacing back and forth as he spoke and occasional would walk through the wall to be seen outside the ship through the windows, before turning and walking back into the room.
His speech of course would cut off when he did this, although we would still see his lips moving through the windows.
All joking aside, reality has never been canon. From the 1960s forward, it's obvious that Trek's future history is very different from our reality.
Only when the writers care about such a thing. For the most part they are content with it being our own reality as a much as any other TV Show.
Perhaps I missed the word ‘too’. Dr Who doesn’t take itself too seriously.
I have to laugh though, at the suggestion that I haven’t seen much of the show. I live in a doctor who household. It’s on all the time, classic and new, it’s on CD in the car, there are magazines and dr Who mrmen books littering the stairs, Lego sets, sonic screw drivers, mugs. I can’t turn my head without seeing Dr Who something or other. My foot still hurts from the Lego weeping angel I stood on earlier. It’s fair to say I’ve seen the show too much.
Real life hasn't been canon to the Star Trek universe ever since 1968 rolled around and the world wasn't launching orbital nuclear warhead platforms. (While we may assume the the two are the same except where the exceptions pop up -- e.g. the Eugenics Wars, '09 mission to Saturn, etc., -- that's not the same.)
Perhaps this is the difference for me. I have a small expectation for Trek tech to line up a little bit with contemporary tech. In other words, I don't want Trek to just be consistent with itself. I also want it to be willing to update based upon contemporary understanding of technology.
The idea that Trek is its own little world is one that I see, but I see the opposite almost immediately. That in order for Trek to inspire, it must have ties to the real world.
For me, it is far more distracting and "immersion breaking" to see technology be so limited and unable to do things that current computers can do, than for there to be basic holograms in Discovery.
The idea that Trek is its own little world is one that I see, but I see the opposite almost immediately. That in order for Trek to inspire, it must have ties to the real world.
For me, it is far more distracting and "immersion breaking" to see technology be so limited and unable to do things that current computers can do, than for there to be basic holograms in Discovery.
Okay, that does make a significant difference. And mea culpa for impugning your Who fandom.
So, does DSC take itself too seriously, then?
Okay, that does make a significant difference. And mea culpa for impugning your Who fandom.
So, does DSC take itself too seriously, then?
Oh it’s not my fandom, it’s the kids. I just like it a healthy amount
Discovery presents itself as serious drama in a believable future, but it’s not above the occasional gag. But would Star Trek get away with farting aliens, the big brother house, rat eating skulls, sentient blobs of fat, a titanic replica in space, the orient express in space, stolen planets, clockwork robots, disappearing Olympic crowds. Dr who has far more creative freedom than Trek could ever have.
Discovery has a very "anime" vibe to it. Has anyone else noticed this? Or almost like a music video, like scenes are a semi-symbolic representation of events. It may depend on director, but the images that immediately(and most obviously) spring to mind are things like Burnham's court martial, or the "Klingon fleet" poised to attack earth.
It's like the feeling you get when watching a stage play, and the various representations a play will use. Maybe it's artistically designed to be that way.
It's like the feeling you get when watching a stage play, and the various representations a play will use. Maybe it's artistically designed to be that way.
Star Trek isn’t real so anything can be done with it. If that causes issues, you may want to avoid all fiction. Demanding no flexibility from fiction is always going to end in problems.
Very much this for me. Trek's claim to be our future is more valuable to me than its internal consistency. There are indications that this is the case for the producers too, as Voyager went back to a 1990s which was clearly not ravaged by eugenic wars, and Cochrane moved from Alpha Centauri to Montana.
If Trek has to retcon to allow for advances and changes that it didn't foresee 50 years ago, I'm all for it.
I want to see Trek as who we could be and it should always update itself to better represent our future. It shouldn’t be treated as some realistic alternate universe that’s set in stone and any cosmetic difference must be signs of a changed timeline.
The ones seen on DSC look more like the holograms used in the Star Wars universe. Largely monochromatic in appearance with jiggles and waves in the transmissions that make them look more like translucent projections. Not interactive save for that one weird moment when the hologram of Sarek appeared to sit or lean on the furniture in Burnham's quarters. Frankly, if we have to accept these as canon in the 2250s they don't seem anywhere near as advanced as the holodeck and holosuite characters of the TNG era. That doesn't mean they don't have annoying characteristics that make me wish they didn't even have them in the first place but at least I don't lose any sleep over primitive hologram technology in this time period.
Fair enough.
I tend to prefer fictional universes be consistent with themselves primarily and find that breaking that consistency for the sake of real world developments to be annoying.
(All this seems to be the crux of the issue; some people don't mind or like the changes of DSC while others do. Everything else is just variations on that theme and none of it really has anything to do with the question of if the show is good or not on its own merits.)
Similar threads
