Visual Reboots: Ships...but not characters?
- Thread starter ChallengerHK
- Start date
Eh? You're saying the difference between you watching the Abrams movies is that they did that stupid time travel plot device to explain why everything's different? You can't just accept that this Batman is similar to, but not the same as the Batman I saw in the 60s?
May God have mercy on us all.
No, I meant that I thought Discovery wasn't very good and probably would have given up on it if not for my pre-existing fondness for Star Trek. Had it been a reboot, I'm not sure I would have stuck with it.
the difference being if christopher nolan had said christian bale was the same batman we saw as played by adam west.
i would appreciate if discovery was a straight up reboot. whether or not they use time travel or alternate realities as an excuse. or just don't explain it and call it a "retelling" or "reimagining" or whatever other buzz word they want.
Interesting. When I realised watching Enterprise was a chore, I just stopped watching. I like Disco much better.
I think you missed the context.
it happens.
Definitely agree re: Mudd. In TOS I always got the sense he was more like Quark - a bit of a rogue but ultimately harmless. DSC seemed to take Mudd and make him... unhinged. Either that’s what the Klingons did to him in prison or he had a remarkable recovery over the next 10 years. Which is not beyond the realm of possibility I suppose...
I liked Enterprise's fourth season much better than Discovery, other than the disappointing finale.
Of the Trek shows, I've only watched TOS and TNG in their entirety, but I'm trying to give Discovery time to find its footing. And they got me right in the feels with the Enterprise at the end. Which was, of course, the point.
I don't think its too outrageous that the properties were chopped up and resold dover the years. Just because one thing can't be shown doesn't mean everything has to be different. If we are to believe that the Enterprise truly needed to be 25% different , it's not far-fetched that a license package was sold to a buyer for the rights to showing the original Enterprise on television/streaming broadcast but that package did not include, for instance, characters that were on the series. Maybe this group owns that ship design, another group owns the Klingon ship designs. Maybe one random dude owns the rights to produce TNG style Klingons specifically. I mean, its all pretty ridiculous sounding, but look at how Marvel broke up their properties. CBS could have taken it to the next level of complicated.
Oh look, a movie elementWell at least one ship wasn't Re-designed(credit to TrekCore for the image)
Coincidentally the ship also appeared in Star Trek '09.
Another rights myth....
There are background shots of the Enterprise and Serenity in RDM's BSG.Oh look, a movie element
Another rights myth....
In case the winky wasn't enough, I was joking. There's also a Millennium Falcon in STFC. But the movie rights thing is difficult to line up with the amount the movies are referenced.
The women were complicit though, right? As in they took the drug willingly because they wanted husbands? I never interpreted TOS Mudd as a human trafficker. Unless I’ve remembered the details of the episode incorrectly in which case I’m happy to be corrected
That's what every human trafficker says.
Whatever the women consented to individually, what we actually see on screen is horrifying. Mudd is the only one who gets paid in this deal (and he seems to get paid by both the women and the men, while failing to even provide transport), the women have no choice in their husbands, the men fight over them, they have no way off that planet if these violent men turn on them.
Discovery is just honest about what an ugly human being Mudd has always been.
To be fair that’s an interpretation I’d not considered. I don’t think that was the intended message in the episode, but I’d not thought about it from that angle.
This is the scene I’m thinking of which makes me think Mudd wasn’t a human trafficker:
KIRK: Did these ladies come voluntarily?
MUDD: Well, of course! Now, for example, Ruthie here comes from a pelagic planet, sea ranchers. Magda there from the helium experimental station.
EVE: It's the same story for all of us, Captain. No men. Mine was a farm planet with automated machines for company and two brothers to cook for, mend their clothes, canal mud a foot thick on their boots every time they walked in.
MUDD: Fine, Evie. Fine.
EVE: It's not fine! We've got men willing to be our husbands waiting for us, and you're taking us in the opposite direction! Staring at us Iike we were Saturnius harem girls or something.
Evie doesn’t contradict Harry when he says they came voluntarily - and she confirms that the ladies’ planets of origin had “no men”. I always interpreted this scene as the women were happy for Mudd to resettle them and arrange husbands for them.
In light of your point about payment, we don’t know that the women ever wanted paying - just resettling. But from the perspective you describe I agree that there are some unsettling overtones from a modern point of view. Personally I wish they’d chalked that up to “sixties writing” rather than “Mudd was a human trafficker”.
Ah, thanks for the correction!
It has pretty much turned me off to the Star Trek franchise at this point. Something I never in a million years thought I would ever hear myself say.
I'm sure I'm in the minority.
