Because there is no "Discoverse"! It's the Prime Universe, the same reality as all previous Trek TV series, regardless of how it's visually rendered.
John Eaves Trek Art Book Out Now
- Thread starter JD
- Start date
Because there is no "Discoverse"! It's the Prime Universe, the same reality as all previous Trek TV series, regardless of how it's visually rendered.
I'm calling it that in order to differentiate the unique visuals of Discovery's version of the Prime universe compared to the reasonably consistant visual continuity of TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.
Otherwise, I am curious how you expect anyone to tell apart Pike's Enterprise in "The Cage" and in "Will You Take My Hand?"
TOS's visual continuity is anything but consistent with the rest. TMP completely and utterly reinvented the visual language of Star Trek, just as drastically as DSC did, and the later shows followed the movies' design precedent. It's just that we've had decades to convince ourselves that they're a shared reality, so our minds gloss over the massive, profound differences in visuals between TOS/TAS and everything that came later.
Just call the latter one the Discovery version. "Discoverse" is an obnoxious and misleading label, because it is not a separate "verse."
Every single time we've revisited the TOS era or seen ships and technology from the 2260's, they've used the unique TOS graphics and sets. "Relics", "Trials and Tribble-ations", DS9's Xhosa and even the Armagosa Observatory of Star Trek Generations. When the classic movie/pre-TNG era was visited, we saw those unique sets, costumes and graphics. Only now in Discovery (and to a lesser extent, the explicitly alternate universe-set Kelvin movies) have they swapped out an already established look for an era for something new.
So it comes down to you not liking my terminology?
To me, there should always be a forward progression. Each series really needs to come after what came before.
I might call the Discovery Enterprise a (non-labeled) Enterprise G--and explain how some designs were "retro" as an in-universe explanation. Roddenberry may have wanted Klingons to have always been of the TMP variety--but a great in-universe explanation would have Q'onoS essentially be Skaro--so much in-fighting and war that the warriors go from Preserver stock--to TOS--to TMP--to Discovery.
You persist in ignoring the fact that Discovery is not simultaneous with any TOS production. It is set during the 12-year gap between the two pilots. That makes it as easy to reconcile the differences by invoking refits and changes over time as it was for TMP vis-a-vis TOS. I don't know why you see the two equivalent situations as somehow fundamentally irreconcilable.
It comes down to your terminology being misleading. The whole reason this argument happened was because I took your usage of the term "Discoverse" to mean that you considered Discovery to be a separate continuity from the Prime Universe. Now I think I've finally caught on that that isn't what you're actually saying, but I'm still not quite sure, because it's such a confusing label. Clarity is important in language.
Busy year.
Not to mention you're arguing this point while saying you consider the previous look of Trek to be more authentic than Discovery's version. In other words, you're telling me I'm wrong to consider the TOS and DSC visuals seperate and incompatible while you yourself seperate them and prefer the former over the latter.
In this case, only to the ultra pedantic. If you look through my posts in this thread, you'll see you were assuming incorrectly long before I began using "Discoverse" as shorthand for "Star Trek viewed through the unique lens of Discovery's designers"
Huh? I said "12-year gap," not "12-month gap." Although I should've said "11-year gap" -- "The Cage" is 2254, "Will You Take My Hand?" is 2257, "Where No Man" is 2265. The gap between pilots is still quite empty, a mostly unexplored part of the timeline, which is why it made sense to put DSC there.
"Wrong?" No. I'm saying it's my personal preference to read it that way. I'm not saying it's the only way to read it. As I said, I thought you were assuming DSC was a separate continuity/universe from the previous shows. That is objectively incorrect. But if that wasn't what you were saying after all, then it's strictly a difference of opinion and we can drop this whole thing.
It is a separate continuity/version of Star Trek. There's no way your going to reconcile women being mostly treated as second-class citizens/telling everyone "they're frightened" in TOS and what is going on in Discovery.
Just not possible. It is a major flaw of TOS, and shouldn't be celebrated, at the same time, it makes the two impossible to reconcile.
TOS is a product of its time. Essentially, Discovery is removing it piece-meal from the continuity it created.
Although if I had to choose a visual continuity between the two series it sure wouldn't be the DSC one.
The DSC Connie uses some design elements from the NX-01, so no, it isn't throwing all of previous visuals out.
And we've already seen they're bring back some form the K'Tinga/D7 in Season 2.
Some of the drastically changed visuals (Klingons and Fed ships) were mostly Bryan Fuller's doing, he's gone, which means they can start back tracking on some of his decisions.
Some really spiffy artwork, and none of the idiotic arguing seen in this thread.
Being influenced isn't the same as maintaining visual continuity. The 2009 movie Enterprise is influenced by the TOS and TMP versions of the ship, but again they're influences and not continuity.
They took pains to include sketches that did not appear in the magazines of the respective ships. And we get more on props.
Plus, its narrative is Eaves’s journey through his career, which I found eye-opening, because it puts a perspective on the disparate Trek outings and their zeitgeist.
Last edited:
You put too much stock into visuals.
Very interesting discussion. I look forward to watching Discovery once I get a Blu-Ray copy (I believe I'm getting it for Christmas--at least judging by my wife's comment not to buy it). Timing is perfect as I just finished watching Enterprise on Blu-Ray I got a while back.
I'm one that likes a certain visual continuity. I always hated when new designers changed things just for the sake of changing things. At the same time I recognize things have to be updated. While the original series designs and ships can work very well in a one off story like "In A Mirror, Darkly", I realize that an entire show with that design is probably not going to work. I actually didn't gripe too much about Enterprise because I saw that Herman Zimmerman and his designers made an attempt to strike a balance. On the one hand it had to look more advanced than today, but less advanced than the original series.
Sometimes we fans can be a bit unfair. Between the late 1980's until Enterprise ended in 2005 it was largely the same team of designers. Some individuals changed but there was a continuity in the staff that led to a continuity in how the show appeared. Now in a perfect world (at least in my own mind) I'd love to see that continue in some fashion. I try to be reasonable and will give the new team some leeway, but I'd love to see it at least grounded in prior designs. So that you can see a certain progression and a certain underlying continuity. I had some issues with the Abramsverse movies over that, though I give them a lot of credit for making an effort to realign some of that in STID in areas that didn't interfere with the story they were trying to tell.
So far I've only seen the premiere episode of Discovery on CBS so I can't say too much about that. I never liked a window on the bridge, not in the Abramsverse movies and not on the Shenzou. That seems utterly ridiculous to me. I also didn't care for the new Klingon look. They are so far removed from previous Klingons that it's hard to reconcile them. Subtle changes, ok. I mean even Berman Trek did that. But if it wasn't explicitly noted on screen they were Klingons I'd probably be wondering who the new aliens were. That and the prosthetics obviously impaired the actors speech. So it didn't seem well thought out.
All that being said if Discovery tells a good story and at least maintains a literary continuity in what they say is still the prime universe it's a show I think I could still enjoy, IF it's a good story.
I'm one that likes a certain visual continuity. I always hated when new designers changed things just for the sake of changing things. At the same time I recognize things have to be updated. While the original series designs and ships can work very well in a one off story like "In A Mirror, Darkly", I realize that an entire show with that design is probably not going to work. I actually didn't gripe too much about Enterprise because I saw that Herman Zimmerman and his designers made an attempt to strike a balance. On the one hand it had to look more advanced than today, but less advanced than the original series.
Sometimes we fans can be a bit unfair. Between the late 1980's until Enterprise ended in 2005 it was largely the same team of designers. Some individuals changed but there was a continuity in the staff that led to a continuity in how the show appeared. Now in a perfect world (at least in my own mind) I'd love to see that continue in some fashion. I try to be reasonable and will give the new team some leeway, but I'd love to see it at least grounded in prior designs. So that you can see a certain progression and a certain underlying continuity. I had some issues with the Abramsverse movies over that, though I give them a lot of credit for making an effort to realign some of that in STID in areas that didn't interfere with the story they were trying to tell.
So far I've only seen the premiere episode of Discovery on CBS so I can't say too much about that. I never liked a window on the bridge, not in the Abramsverse movies and not on the Shenzou. That seems utterly ridiculous to me. I also didn't care for the new Klingon look. They are so far removed from previous Klingons that it's hard to reconcile them. Subtle changes, ok. I mean even Berman Trek did that. But if it wasn't explicitly noted on screen they were Klingons I'd probably be wondering who the new aliens were. That and the prosthetics obviously impaired the actors speech. So it didn't seem well thought out.
All that being said if Discovery tells a good story and at least maintains a literary continuity in what they say is still the prime universe it's a show I think I could still enjoy, IF it's a good story.
Similar threads
