They both look different but are essentially supposed to be the same thing.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
There is nothing wrong with re-imaging the looks while keeping it in the same universe.
Fuller wanted to tell a story in the 23rd century, but they knew the majority of the audience wouldn't want to see cardboard sets.
I think it is. I suspect that you disagree with my premise rather than my logic.
I edited my post.
I think there is.
Then he should have made it an alternate timeline version of the 23rd century, and he could have made it look however he wanted. JJ was smart enough to know this. Fuller, apparently, was not.
There is zero reasons to make it an alternate timeline. He wanted to tell a story that took place in what we knew, and that is what they did.
The list of issues with Discovery is just too long. The basic lack of understanding TOS in the Discovery production is sad. It is the series most impacted by the decisions (except the Klingon redesign which impacts ALL the series). A few of the issues can be explained away by Captain Lorca being from the mirror universe (the only way he could have a tribble and a Gorn skeleton) but so many others can't. The mislabeling of all the ships with the arrowhead emblem (the TOS symbol was completely different and that arrowhead didn't show up on the side of a ship until the movies), the four nostril Klingons, the Klingon lack of hair, the prosthetics that made the Klingon dialog more incomprehensible than TNG, the mis-steps in the story that don't fit with TOS. The information that NBC ordered it be different for creative reasons tops it all off. Sorry, but the Enterprise sits in the Smithsonian and never looked like we see it in Discovery. Fixing a 60's mistake would be adding more detail to the Enterprise hull, or giving the sets a ceiling, using a more comfortable and form fitting fabric for the uniforms. I look at Rogue One and Doctor Who's Twice Upon A Time as the gold standards of how to reach back to 40 or 50 year old episodes or films and be authentic while still updating them for a modern audience. Discovery failed in my book.
I also found Discovery to be weak in the story department. I think it is far better than the horrible films we have been subjected to, but I find the characters of even Enterprise to be more fun and enjoyable to watch and the stories more compelling. And that is with me ignoring every time it contradicts TOS. I think it would be a find SF property if they just call it the reboot many of us know it to be. I preferred The Orville and the new Lost In Space.
I also found Discovery to be weak in the story department. I think it is far better than the horrible films we have been subjected to, but I find the characters of even Enterprise to be more fun and enjoyable to watch and the stories more compelling. And that is with me ignoring every time it contradicts TOS. I think it would be a find SF property if they just call it the reboot many of us know it to be. I preferred The Orville and the new Lost In Space.
It would have avoided a visual contradiction with the era he claimed he was setting it in. You may think that is not an important reason, but it is nevertheless a reason and so it is factually incorrect to claim there is "zero" reason to avoid an alternate timeline.
How does that stack up with the reasons not to make it an alternate timeline? Those are... I'm blanking. Do you have anything?
If he wanted to do that he wouldn't have changed it. Discovery is NOT set in what we knew. It "reinvented" what we knew.
Some ships in DSC do use the TOS style decals, including the Enterprise herself
They understood TOS fine..
It wasn't the prosthetics causing this as Voq sounded exactly the same when he spoke Klingon while looking Human, I think it was meant to be an 'accent'.
I think you mean CBS
Star Wars sets were a lot more detailed, a lot more 'real' looking then Star Trek. They are also not trying to look like the future.
Ask Marvel and DC. They've had to hedge-trim their multiverse numerous times since the 80's. It becomes confusing even to dedicated readers or audiences.
"Ok this is Captain Awfulburger and the USS Gyro.. so that means we're watching Star Trek Exploration set in universe 12.. ok got the popcorn, let's press play!"
Audiences can accept visual changes. They get it. They don't expect (and mostly don't want) something that retro or the networks would be piling it sky high.
It's the narrative continuity that matters, and even that doesn't matter as much as good stories.
They were realists. If they made it look like the 60s people would have mocked it even more.
They have no need to. Most people can accept some modern updating.'
This show wasn't made for you I guess.
So movies already retconned this?
Probably already discussed on this forum and/or retconned in older series/movies but can you be more specific(only please no holograms and cloaking devices)?
They do have need to. They just decided to vandalise the Star Trek franchise.
No, it certainly wasn't made for Star Trek fans. I don't know who it was made for. Idiots, possibly.
It was made for Star Trek fans. Just not the ones stuck in the 1960s and don't like change.
Not exactly a retcon if it comes later in the timeline.
There's no need for name calling. Plenty of Star Trek fans like Discovery, and plenty don't. You don't have to watch it. There are a lot of other things to do.
Star Trek continues did just that and was miles better than Discovery! And Discovery 'is' set in another universe or alternate reality that much is obvious!
JB
Similar threads
