I think the term they used was that it was only a visual reboot, but same universe. I'm sorry, but what the producers intend and what is executed isn't the same. It's what is on the final cut that matters.
Poll Do You Believe STD Is Actually a Reboot [After Seeing It]?
- Thread starter Kane_Steel
- Start date
Did they use the term or was that us?
I'm starting to think we need some sort of reboot spectrum so everyone's OCD need to categorise what is/isn't a reboot can be satisfied.
I mean, what are the options?
HARD reboot: eg. Battlestar Galactica. All other realities/timelines scrapped and have no bearing on new incarnation. Someone pushed the big red button and did an honest to god REBOOT.
WEAK reboot: Now this is where it's trickier territory, IMO. Kelvinverse used time travel hijinks to fork off of the prime timeline. It's not the prime timeline unfolding differently, but an alternate reality. But effects in tampering with time in the prime universe have been shown to ripple thru the prime reality. Which, if we take the alternate reality thing at face value, it means even if Our Prime Heroes or the 29th Century Time Police shoot back in time and correct things in *their* reality (stop Nero before he starts wreaking havoc in the 23rd Century), the alternate reality still plays out - we just don't get to see it, except in the Kelvinverse case. Which mean in say... First Contact, The Borg went back in time, created an offshoot reality and assimilated Earth in 2063 AND were stopped in the prime timeline by Picard and co.
Ok, that's starting to get messy... That last bit is more to do with how time travel works in Star Trek and less about reboot definitions.
So, they get to do what they want in the Kelvinverse, but it's not a reboot of the prime timeline. That still exists independently. SO, WEAK reboot.
And now we have Discovery where the producers have stated it does take place in the Prime timeline. No offshoot. Therefore it has to be reconciled with prime timeline continuity if it's NOT a reboot. Hence, we're getting the term "visual reboot" thrown about to compensate for the obvious incongruity between Discovery and TOS.
I mean, what are the options?
HARD reboot: eg. Battlestar Galactica. All other realities/timelines scrapped and have no bearing on new incarnation. Someone pushed the big red button and did an honest to god REBOOT.
WEAK reboot: Now this is where it's trickier territory, IMO. Kelvinverse used time travel hijinks to fork off of the prime timeline. It's not the prime timeline unfolding differently, but an alternate reality. But effects in tampering with time in the prime universe have been shown to ripple thru the prime reality. Which, if we take the alternate reality thing at face value, it means even if Our Prime Heroes or the 29th Century Time Police shoot back in time and correct things in *their* reality (stop Nero before he starts wreaking havoc in the 23rd Century), the alternate reality still plays out - we just don't get to see it, except in the Kelvinverse case. Which mean in say... First Contact, The Borg went back in time, created an offshoot reality and assimilated Earth in 2063 AND were stopped in the prime timeline by Picard and co.
Ok, that's starting to get messy... That last bit is more to do with how time travel works in Star Trek and less about reboot definitions.
So, they get to do what they want in the Kelvinverse, but it's not a reboot of the prime timeline. That still exists independently. SO, WEAK reboot.
And now we have Discovery where the producers have stated it does take place in the Prime timeline. No offshoot. Therefore it has to be reconciled with prime timeline continuity if it's NOT a reboot. Hence, we're getting the term "visual reboot" thrown about to compensate for the obvious incongruity between Discovery and TOS.
Last edited:
Discovery is Discovery. What does that mean? This is what it means...
They want it to be Prime with modern production values and designs. As I said, what seems like a long time ago, it's not 1964.
It Prime because that the milieu they wish to set their stories in.
But this is something they are neither compelled nor obligated nor inclined to do.
Since the beacon was a technological gizmo, I've no issue with it being FTL.
It is prime, given a new lick of paint. Just like the new Picard series is going to be. Get used to it, son.
I agree that Kirshner's appearance in flashback wasn't overly problematic, however her contemporous appearances (un-aged up) in the season finalle is rather more so.
Sure, they don't have to do anything other than what the studio heads demand, or what their immediate superior tells them-head writer or producer-for the writers. But if they are calling it prime, it should try to be in continuity with what came before and after otherwise we have false advertising.
My thoughts on "Battle at the Binary Stars" (mediocre) and "Context is for Kings" (fairly good) hasn't changed much. The visuals of the show seem to be a mix of Battlestar Galactica (2004) and Mass Effect. There's very little about the visual identity, beyond arrowhead badges and warp nacelles (and a few of the smaller props), that even make me think of TOS.
There was a nice bit in "Battle..." that I missed on my first watch: as Sarek is leaving the Shenzhou, he quietly says "behave" to Burnham as he's getting on the transporter pad. I liked that quite a bit.
There was a nice bit in "Battle..." that I missed on my first watch: as Sarek is leaving the Shenzhou, he quietly says "behave" to Burnham as he's getting on the transporter pad. I liked that quite a bit.
So TMP is a reboot? The Great Bird's claims that the Klingons always looked like that should be discounted and we should consider everything since 1979 to be in an alternate universe? and now Discovery is in an alternative to the alternative universe?
Could we at least try to make these one line drive-bys topic relevant?
Yes, that is the argument. It comes down to the weight that is given the the visuals. For some, the visuals need to line up precisely so as not to interfere with past presentation. For others, the continuity of the stories can be bent in the small details while retaining the larger events and characters.As always, whatever authorial intent is meant to be must be discounted unless it is useful as a 2x4 to point out others are wrong.
Ok, on a more serious note-the inconsistencies of Star Trek are going to very from person to person. For me, personally, the tech side is not the most important part. The stories and the characters are.