When and how will DSC crossover with the TNG sequel?
- Thread starter Red Panda
- Start date
I found the Discovery and Shenzhou set design was quite similar to the Enterprise-E.
The D doesn't look more advanced to me, just more comfortable.
I agree. I was saying that when the first pictures of the sets came out.
The Discovery interiors look more like the Enterprise-E than anything from the 23rd century.
I agree. I was saying that when the first pictures of the sets came out.
The Discovery interiors look more like the Enterprise-E than anything from the 23rd century.
I disagree.
And yet that was the reason they ditched it on ds9. They couldn't visually distinguish between holograms and beaming in, and couldn't afford a constant effect over the actor. When you have a franchise with beaming, you kind of do have to distinguish the two.
Most of Trek is not more or less 'advanced', it's the same exact technologies, just with different visual designs. Every era has the same basic things. Phasers, sensors, communicators, transporters, shields, warp drive, which all work basically the same way. Phasers stunned, vaporised and blew up in TOS; they stunned, vaporised and blew up in TNG. The technological consistency (you could say stagnation) across centuries is quite remarkable actually. The reality is that they are devices to advance the plot, and to a certain extent branding, not a realistic attempt to portray technological advancement.
Star Trek: Picard will probably have phasers, sensors, shields, warp drive etc too, and they'll probably work the same way. That won't make it 'contemporary with Discovery', it'll just make it Star Trek.
The interior of Discovery looks closer to Star Trek VI meets Star Trek (2009) than it does to Star Trek: First Contact... though the Enterprise-E does look more in-line with the Enterprise-A, Kelvin Enterprise, and Discovery. The bronze coloring of Discovery's interiors evokes the Enterprise-E to a degree.
So that would make the Enterprise-D the outlier. Intentionally production-wise and possibly intentionally in-universe. The idea of the Galaxy Class was to look like a home in space instead of a military ship. They ditched that idea with the Enterprise-E and went back to "normal".
Voyager and the Defiant also moved away from the Enterprise-D, reinforcing the idea that the Galaxy Class was a unique case designed in an era different from the ones that came before it and after.
So that would make the Enterprise-D the outlier. Intentionally production-wise and possibly intentionally in-universe. The idea of the Galaxy Class was to look like a home in space instead of a military ship. They ditched that idea with the Enterprise-E and went back to "normal".
Voyager and the Defiant also moved away from the Enterprise-D, reinforcing the idea that the Galaxy Class was a unique case designed in an era different from the ones that came before it and after.
Last edited:
Crossover confirmed
"Make it so."
Sure. Why not? Isn't any and all new Star Trek one sort of sequel or another with respect to all previous Star Trek? You know what, nevermind. Let's not have that conversation again...
THIS. Ah, prescriptivism...
And this! Not that it's going to be a straight-up TNG revival following the same format—or "reboot" as the mainstream
—but of course this isn't going to end up as "just Picard, no one else." He's merely the first one they've brought on board so far.Well, if one really finds that a particularly important consideration on this specific front...
Long distance communications that don't flicker and jitter (except initially, to establish their nature, like in NEM) and aren't constrained to specific areas, and perhaps even relay sensory stimuli through the avatar back to the user. Wider implementation of the TNG holodeck's integration of holography with transporter and replicator tech, allowing instantaneous transmutation of holographic objects into fully-permanent physical ones, or even the reverse. (Both of these would entail intuitive safeguards, a logical but more sophisticated extension of the holodeck "safety protocols" in the TNG era.) Pocket holodecks and other small, wearable projectors akin to the Doctor's mobile emitter all over the place. Speaking of which, his vision of holographic emancipation that seemed poised on the cusp of sparking a cultural revolution in "Author Author" (VGR) brought to full fruition, with holographic personhood enshrined and embraced. Along the same lines, further evidence that ethical concerns regarding the use of others' images—previously raised, but really only touched upon in passing in episodes like "Hollow Pursuits" (TNG), "Galaxy's Child" (TNG), and "Meridian" (DS9)—have received address and redress. Stuff like that.
Evidence?
You mean the combat simulator in "Lethe"? Maybe only the bare bones, the elements that don't move around, like select walls. What else was even implied to be solid? And maybe not even that...
Look, they never physically interact with the Klingons. Yes, Tyler “hits a virtual button,” but you do the same thing playing Star Trek: Bridge Crew on the PS4. What you’re seeing here is a step toward the development of holodecks. It’s not a fully realized holodeck.
We talked about this a lot in the room. It’s honestly not that far removed from today’s VR experience. Are we supposed to pretend that technology just disappeared or stopped evolving? This is basically a high tech laser tag. And honestly – it was in The Animated Series. So I don’t get what the big controversy is.
Technology doesn’t just suddenly materialize overnight. You evolve slowly from punchcard machines to desktop computers to laptops to smartphones. What you’re seeing here is a step in the journey of the development of holodecks. That’s all.
-Ted Sullivan, via TrekMovie
We talked about this a lot in the room. It’s honestly not that far removed from today’s VR experience. Are we supposed to pretend that technology just disappeared or stopped evolving? This is basically a high tech laser tag. And honestly – it was in The Animated Series. So I don’t get what the big controversy is.
Technology doesn’t just suddenly materialize overnight. You evolve slowly from punchcard machines to desktop computers to laptops to smartphones. What you’re seeing here is a step in the journey of the development of holodecks. That’s all.
-Ted Sullivan, via TrekMovie
Again, streaming an HD video feed in real time over long distances can present difficulties where displaying a stable high-res still image over a short one doesn't.
But surely, that is the advancement? I.e., considerations for creature comfort and "hominess" no longer need play second fiddle to more utilitarian concerns?
Bridge aside, I find Discovery's interiors highly reminiscent of the TMP Enterprise, personally. (Several of whose sets of course went on to be redressed for TNG and beyond.)
-MMoM
Last edited:
The TNG movies underperformed and the sequel series never reached TNG’s cultural popularity. 25 years later Orville took up an exaggerated yet similar esthetic to TNG the series. If they’re actually interested in having an impact, they’ll go with something similar to what resonated with people instead of what looks kewl. They should update TNG to look sharper, as we expect nowadays, but keep the optimistic, realistic, look that made it popular in the first place.
They're not going to rehash TNG. I wouldn't be surprised if this new series doesn't even have a ship in it. It could be a character drama set entirely on one planet.
Star Trek needs to push forward with bold ideas and not regurgitate the same old shit. That's what got ENT cancelled and the movies to end up back in development hell.
Star Trek needs to push forward with bold ideas and not regurgitate the same old shit. That's what got ENT cancelled and the movies to end up back in development hell.
Tell the people at STD that.
Yep. The "Star Trek Universe" is a three-century continuum in which nothing ever changes. They rearrange the furniture.
They haven't though. Like famously haven't. It's been a huge part of fan discussions around the show, how much they deviate from the norms. You have 22k posts on this forum, how would you not know this?
Just FYI, the last year of the 24th century will be 2400, and the first year of the 25th century will be 2401. No year zero and all that. Lotta people got this wrong in the year 1999. The 21st century and the 3rd millennium didn't begin until 2001.
Carry on!
If you watch & like Star Trek because of the aesthetics, or dislike a ST show or movie because of the aesthetics, you are so missing the premise of the whole enterprise. Aesthetics are the sprinkles on your ice cream, not the main course.
Modern made sci-fi shows (DSC) are going to look more modern than shows made 50 or 20-30 years ago for two simple reasons:
1) The world has advanced more and some things that were futuristic (floppy discs, laptops) are obsolete NOW, much less in the future. Also, things we take for granted now (tablets, mobile phones, 3D printers) were not yet conceived of 50 years ago.
2) The world of CGI/computer graphics has advanced a TON. You can do more things, do things quicker, and at lower costs than previously. So you can do more gadgety/techie/hologramy shots now when before it was impractical or impossible.
Build this into your thinking when watching the shows instead of getting caught up into some strange, much too literal train of thought about visual continuity & cannon. You want floppy discs on DISCO with huge computers?
Modern made sci-fi shows (DSC) are going to look more modern than shows made 50 or 20-30 years ago for two simple reasons:
1) The world has advanced more and some things that were futuristic (floppy discs, laptops) are obsolete NOW, much less in the future. Also, things we take for granted now (tablets, mobile phones, 3D printers) were not yet conceived of 50 years ago.
2) The world of CGI/computer graphics has advanced a TON. You can do more things, do things quicker, and at lower costs than previously. So you can do more gadgety/techie/hologramy shots now when before it was impractical or impossible.
Build this into your thinking when watching the shows instead of getting caught up into some strange, much too literal train of thought about visual continuity & cannon. You want floppy discs on DISCO with huge computers?
Utter and complete nonsense. Film and television are intrinsically visual media. A narrative that's presented poorly on screen in a visual sense is at the least a failure to have understood and properly used the essential elements of the form.
They showed a fake boob and said fuck. Oh, and they had gay characters, which brought them solidly into the 20th century. Other than that, it was the same old thing.
You missed the point as usual.
Uhura's Song was trying to once again tell people that Aesthetics aren't Canon.
Similar threads
