Nature of the visual reboot

[Groppler Zorn]

Hi everyone. I’ve been thinking about this concept of the “visual reboot” and struggling to get my head around it if I’m honest. Particularly when DSC is supposed to be a direct prequel to TOS and set in the same universe and timeline.

So... I’ve been trying to think of analogous examples of the “visual reboot” concept. One idea I came up with was the 1996 version of “Romeo + Juliet” where the dialogue, characters and events are the same, but the visuals are totally updated. Should DSC be viewed in the same way? Basically it’s like Shakespeare but done in an updated way to give the visuals relevance to a modern audience? Or are the DSC producers trying to redefine what Star Trek is by saying “TOS wasn’t really Star Trek, what we’re doing *now* is”.

I’m not trying to argue that DSC isn’t prime here by the way. Or that it should be called a full on reboot. I’m just trying to get my head around how to interpret the way the Trek universe is being presented to us through the DSC lens.

I want to get into it, not get over it.

Interested to see what people think

 

[Jinn]

A good analogy could be comics: Here's the cover of The Silver Surfer #98 from November 1994, next to the cover of The Secret Defenders #9, from the same month:

As you can see the Surfer look veeery different on these two covers, but no character acknowledges this and it isn't a plot point, it's just the different ways the character is drawn by different artists, while still being part of the same continuity.

Also The Secret Defenders #9 is fucking hideous!

 

[BillJ]

Or are the DSC producers trying to redefine what Star Trek is by saying “TOS wasn’t really Star Trek, what we’re doing *now* is”.

This is clearly what is going on.

 

[dahj]

Discovery looks different than TOS for the same reason TOS looks different than Le Voyage dans la Lune.

Because there's over 50 years between them and both technology of how we film stuff, and what we view as futuristic has changed.

 

[Dukhat]

Because there's over 50 years between them and both technology of how we film stuff, and what we view as futuristic has changed.

Except that would imply that it's impossible to make a show that copies the visual style of a show from 50 years ago and have the audience accept it. Clearly that's not the case, since both DS9 and ENT had episodes where that was done.

 

[.:: TSN ::.]

Except that would imply that it's impossible to make a show that copies the visual style of a show from 50 years ago and have the audience accept it. Clearly that's not the case, since both DS9 and ENT had episodes where that was done.

DS9 and ENT had couple of episodes, not an ongoing series. It is impossible to make a popular weekly show that copies the look of the 50 year old show with 100% accuracy. Would it be possible to copy the show more accurately than DSC did? Definately yes.

 

[Nightowl1701]

Basically it’s like Shakespeare but done in an updated way to give the visuals relevance to a modern audience? Or are the DSC producers trying to redefine what Star Trek is by saying “TOS wasn’t really Star Trek, what we’re doing *now* is”.

Either way, if they truly mean it, then in the next few years we'll be getting either a Re-remastered TOS given the full George Lucas treatment this time... or a full-fledged remake/rewrite of TOS itself, using DSC visuals and a new cast. It'd be impossible not to call it a full on reboot then.

 

[Awesome Possum]

It just looks different, don’t worry about it. Plus Star Trek is fiction, changes in appearance don’t have to mean anything other than they changed it.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

A good analogy could be comics: Here's the cover of The Silver Surfer #98 from November 1994, next to the cover of The Secret Defenders #9, from the same month:

As you can see the Surfer look veeery different on these two covers, but no character acknowledges this and it isn't a plot point, it's just the different ways the character is drawn by different artists, while still being part of the same continuity.

Also The Secret Defenders #9 is fucking hideous!

Ah, thanks! It seems to be that Trek is getting more comic-book-like as it evolves

 

[Groppler Zorn]

This is clearly what is going on.

I hope you’re wrong, but I suspect you’re right.

 

[Tuskin38]

I hope you’re wrong, but I suspect you’re right.

Nah, they're not doing that. Not with the lore anyways.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

It just looks different, don’t worry about it. Plus Star Trek is fiction, changes in appearance don’t have to mean anything other than they changed it.

I see where you’re coming from, but what if I remade a Jane Austen adaptation, set it in the 19th century, but had everyone wearing jeans a t-shirts? It’d look different (like in the Romeo + Juliet example above) but the story would be the same. Would it be a visual reboot in that case? Or would the visuals not match the fictional reality Austen created? Not asking to be awkward btw

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Nah, they're not doing that. Not with the lore anyways.

Yeh I get the sense from DSC that historical events are unchanged - unless we count the design of the Enterprise to be a historical event. Then things seem to get murky. But that’s where some of the dialogue in Shakespeare could be at odds with a modern day setting - unless we equate Star Trek with Shakespeare (which I’m totally ok with haha!)

 

[Tuskin38]

Well Star Trek has had several theatre actors

 

[fireproof78]

I see where you’re coming from, but what if I remade a Jane Austen adaptation, set it in the 19th century, but had everyone wearing jeans a t-shirts? It’d look different (like in the Romeo + Juliet example above) but the story would be the same. Would it be a visual reboot in that case? Or would the visuals not match the fictional reality Austen created? Not asking to be awkward btw

That's not a fair analogy though. One is a historical fiction piece, with historical facts to support design choices. Compare that to Star Trek, which is a fictional extrapolation of humanity in the future. It isn't set in stone.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

That's not a fair analogy though. One is a historical fiction piece, with historical facts to support design choices. Compare that to Star Trek, which is a fictional extrapolation of humanity in the future. It isn't set in stone.

Fair point. I suppose it’s tenuous to argue that Star Trek is a historical period - albeit a fictional one.

 

[Groppler Zorn]

Either way, if they truly mean it, then in the next few years we'll be getting either a Re-remastered TOS given the full George Lucas treatment this time... or a full-fledged remake/rewrite of TOS itself, using DSC visuals and a new cast. It'd be impossible not to call it a full on reboot then.

That’d be interesting. I think they’d be hard pressed not to change elements of the stories if they did that - meaning it’d have to be a reboot proper. I can’t think of any other franchise where this has happened - where it’s set in the same temporal continuity but looks different. I think the comic book example above is the closest analogy I’ve seen so far.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I see where you’re coming from, but what if I remade a Jane Austen adaptation, set it in the 19th century, but had everyone wearing jeans a t-shirts? It’d look different (like in the Romeo + Juliet example above) but the story would be the same. Would it be a visual reboot in that case? Or would the visuals not match the fictional reality Austen created? Not asking to be awkward btw

That’s just a reboot because those are books that have been adapted and updated multiple times over the years, sometimes with zombies.

A better comparison would be the original Star Wars trilogy and the new movies set around that time. They’ve recast some actors, the props and costumes are far more detailed.

For example, the classic stormtrooper.

Those are just different versions seen in the original trilogy, a lot of variation because they were based on molds.

This is a close up of the details on the new one from Rogue One that takes place right before A New Hope. The painted details on the old are practical and serve a function now.

They made a better costume because the technology had improved. All of these helmet are the same in-universe piece, but look different visually. They didn’t downgrade the suits a few hours after Rogue One.

 

[dahj]

I see where you’re coming from, but what if I remade a Jane Austen adaptation, set it in the 19th century, but had everyone wearing jeans a t-shirts?

The "must look like TOS" argument would be the equivalent of demanding that the 2005 Pride and Prejudice movie must adhere to the exact style of the 1940 movie...

Also, there is a t-shirt generation version of P&P and it's pretty good:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Lord Garth]

For all the changes they've made, they still haven't changed the major stuff. The broad strokes are still intact.

The ships in DSC still have hard lines. They don't look like super-aerodynamic sea-creature aquatic life ships like we see in the 24th Century. The humans also still act like humans as opposed to Vulcans-in-training who become ashamed of any backwards human impulses. Everything still feels rough-and-tumble. In broad strokes, I can still separate the 23rd Century from the 24th.