• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Disco's version of TOS/TAS: Differences

While it would be awesome, the chances of anything from the Kelvin movie series showing up in Disco are zero. Also, I suspect the square nacelles on the Disco ships is to make them immediately distinct from the movie ships.

If SJ Clarkson's ST4 ever happens, we should see Robau and the USS Kelvin there.
 
I'm thinking that the High-Level Company high-jinks going on at the moment, have little to no effect on the day-to-day running of the CBS Trek productions.

Paramount on the other hand has been decisively blowing their part of Trek to smithereens.
It could be another two years before we even see a Trek movie production actually getting started and probably four years before anything hits the theaters.
By then, Paramount may be begging TV Trek to include hints of movie Trek, just to keep it in the public eye.
smh
 
I think, that was confirmed by a STO Dev.
They had to make the deal with CBS to use them in the game, not Paramount.
Yeah, and Paramount isn’t credited anywhere in the game’s fine print.

Though CBS did tell them not to use any of the Beyond stuff at the time, they didn’t say why. Might have been because Beyond hadn’t been released yet.
 
Yeah, and Paramount isn’t credited anywhere in the game’s fine print.

Though CBS did tell them not to use any of the Beyond stuff at the time, they didn’t say why. Might have been because Beyond hadn’t been released yet.
And until a few months ago, they were working on a film featuring George Kirk and presumably the USS Kelvin. So obviously they wouldn't want their moneymakers given away by someone else.

Plus, the USS Kelvin would stick out like the TOS Enterprise among the Discovery ships. Even the hull texture is very different. If it ever appeared, it would be 25%'d like the USS Enterprise and the characters recast like Spock and Pike were.
 
and the characters recast like Spock and Pike were.
How is that comparable?

Nimoy and Hunter are dead, of course they’d have to be recast. And even if they weren’t, they’d be too old.

Quinto and Greenwood are probably too expensive

Plus, the USS Kelvin would stick out like the TOS Enterprise among the Discovery ships.
It really wouldn’t.
 
Last edited:
How is that comparable?

Nimoy and Hunter are dead, of course they’d have to be recast. And even if they weren’t, they’d be too old.

Quinto and Greenwood are probably too expensive
Common sense says if they recast 2 actors from Star Trek 2009, they'll recast 2 more.
It really wouldn’t.
It really would. Seriously, just compare hull textures. The Kelvin has hull texture, and it has a matt finish and lots of detail, as does the USS Franklin. The Disco ships are (unrealistically) ultra smooth and glossy. The Kelvin has a saucer edge, whereas all Disco ships (with exceptions of Discovery herself and Enterprise) have sharp bladed saucer edges. The Kelvin has a circular hull and nacelle, which is exclusive to the Enterprise thus far in the Discovery's-unique-visuals-verse. It would stick out exactly the same as if they dropped the TOS-R Enterprise model into Discovery. If we ever saw the Kelvin in the Disco-visuals-verse, I imagine it would be 'bashed from Discoprise components.

The interiors are a close match, however.
 
I really don't understand the arguments about recasting at all. I mean, TV and film evolved out of stage plays. No one expects that Othello or King Lear will always be played by the same person (which would require immortality anyway). Characters are written roles. Actors are people. They are two entirely different things. And part of the fun of recasting is seeing how actors put a new spin on the old characters.
 
I really don't understand the arguments about recasting at all. I mean, TV and film evolved out of stage plays. No one expects that Othello or King Lear will always be played by the same person (which would require immortality anyway). Characters are written roles. Actors are people. They are two entirely different things. And part of the fun of recasting is seeing how actors put a new spin on the old characters.
Lots of people feel that only William Shatner is Kirk and so on. These characters hold a special place in many people's hearts and recasting them is like saying Jesus was black.
 
Lots of people feel that only William Shatner is Kirk and so on. These characters hold a special place in many people's hearts and recasting them is like saying Jesus was black.

You mean the actors hold a special place in people's hearts right? Again, actor does not equal character.

Also, there's a difference between saying outright "Jesus was black" versus depicting Jesus as being black in a particular picture or film (which is what the analogy would be in this case). There's plenty of stylistic reasons why you might want to choose a black depiction of Jesus after all.
 
You mean the actors hold a special place in people's hearts right? Again, actor does not equal character.

Also, there's a difference between saying outright "Jesus was black" versus depicting Jesus as being black in a particular picture or film (which is what the analogy would be in this case). There's plenty of stylistic reasons why you might want to choose a black depiction of Jesus after all.
Yes the actors hold a special place in people's hearts but also I know some people who feel that William Shatner is the one true Kirk and so on with other characters.
 
Yes the actors hold a special place in people's hearts but also I know some people who feel that William Shatner is the one true Kirk and so on with other characters.

I mean, I'm not saying you're lying, or they're lying. But people having this attitude toward Trek and other series - that it's some documentary-style depiction of an alternate world, rather than a fucking show - never ceases to amaze me.

If you only approach Trek with the attitude that what's shown on the screen matters - if you approach the show on just a canon perspective, and not writerly intent - you're missing a hell of a lot of the subtext. Literary and film allusions will pass right over your head, as will many of the socio-political themes. I mean why did Trek have "issues of the week?" Because it's a show, shows have episodes, and individual episodes can have their own themes.
 
I mean, I'm not saying you're lying, or they're lying. But people having this attitude toward Trek and other series - that it's some documentary-style depiction of an alternate world, rather than a fucking show - never ceases to amaze me.

If you only approach Trek with the attitude that what's shown on the screen matters - if you approach the show on just a canon perspective, and not writerly intent - you're missing a hell of a lot of the subtext. Literary and film allusions will pass right over your head, as will many of the socio-political themes. I mean why did Trek have "issues of the week?" Because it's a show, shows have episodes, and individual episodes can have their own themes.
I think we agree on the recasting being a big deal. It never mattered to me and, like you said, it can bring a new and fresh take on a character. In response to your not understanding the big deal with recasting, I was just saying that some people are against it because they can't accept change basically.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top