Theory for TOS Enterprise and Disco Enterprise differences
- Thread starter TrickyDickie
- Start date
My impression its a single symptom of a much broader condition.
Except very few people are actually saying that. They are saying that a show produced in 2018 with 2018 production values that claims to be a prequel to a show produced in the '60's with '60's production values is rather silly. They're not saying that DSC should look like TOS. I think DSC looks great for what it is, but why it was necessary to make it a prequel to TOS is beyond me, other than having it be a marketing decision to get more people to subscribe to CBSAA. When you compare the two shows, DSC is quite clearly a reboot in every way, just like the Abrams films were reboots.
So you're saying that any Trek show should limited to what time period in which it takes place simply because we have higher production values today? Would this also apply, say, to a future Trek show that used time travel of some sort, because using higher production values to even show present day Earth, for example, would look superior to TOS?
Not to speak for @Dukhat but I don't believe that is what he is articulating at all. My experience is that these objections come from the fact that design language do not flow together from DSC to TOS.
So you are saying that Dukhat means that if DSC had a different design that (for argument's sake) meshed better with TOS, it would work as a prequel? Or at least per Dukhat's argument? Dukhat can speak for himself, of course, but it seems like he is implying that a show cannot simply be a prequel to another show made so long ago (hence his "silly" comment).
Let me give an example to be clearer: Rogue One (2016) was a direct prequel to SW: A New Hope (1977), made 39 years after the latter, but has sets, props, costumes, models etc. that are exactly the same as the film it is a prequel of. Why? Because the producers specifically made R1 as a prequel, so it needed to exactly match what we saw in ANH in every way. It was completely believable that this movie made with the production values of 2016 was able to recreate the same look and feel of a movie made in 1977.
Now contrast that with DSC. It's clear that the show, while visually stunning and using the newest production values available, does not even remotely try to look and feel like the 50+ year old show it's supposedly trying to be a prequel of. And it's not like they couldn't have tried, since R1 pulled it off just fine. It's almost as if it wasn't originally meant to be a prequel to TOS, and that someone just made that decision later in the process after production was already commencing (No, I'm not implying that that's what actually happened. I'm just saying that's what it felt like to me.)
So when I said "a show produced in 2018 with 2018 production values that claims to be a prequel to a show produced in the '60's with '60's production values is rather silly," I meant that there was literally no effort to use those 2018 production values to recreate the look and feel of TOS, and instead made a show that looks and feels more like it takes place either post-TUC or even post-TNG (again, my opinion). As I stated before, I like DSC on its own merits, I think it looks great, and I hope that it continues and gets better. But to me, there's nothing about it that remotely makes me feel like it takes place ten years before TOS, which is what the show is advertised as being. And really, I don't need it to look like TOS. I just need to treat it like the reboot that it actually is.
Last edited:
I saw A New Hope in the theater back in the day. Personally, Rogue 1 did NOT have the same look and feel to me. And I thought the whole thing stunk. The acting felt flat and the story literally put me to sleep in places. Not like the original Star Wars at all.
Star Wars also has a much different conceit than Star Trek does.
Not to derail further but I also loathed the Vader scene. That fell flat as well.
Except Star Wars takes place in a galaxy far, far away, so is immune to what effects Star Trek, the fact that our future looks so much different from today than it did in the 60s, And, IMO, R1 and the untitled Han Solo prequel, were made for one purpose, to appeal to the same demographic that the Orville does, people who are looking to have their nostalgia pandered to, with mixed success, while making only the slightest nods to the fact 40+ years have passed. Lucas loved Buck Rogers and there are homages to his childhood loves, but he didn't make Star Wars look like it was made in the 30s. Ask yourself why.
And you honestly think that Disco's first season story would have worked post Voyager? There would have been even louder screaming from devotees of the Federation utopoa about CBS destroying their Federation, IMHO.
Last edited:
Certainly Vader cracking a Dad joke was not the highlight of my experience. It would have been better if they had left him out.
Sorry, I meant “future proofing” in the sense that the production design didn’t really have any aspects that became overly dated looking. Really the only place they went that was supposed to be “high tech” was the Death Star, which they kept relatively clean and simple.
Haha, been saying this on this forum for a year now and still get "BuT iTs 2019 WhY dO yOu wANt cARdBOArd seTs!?". They're purposely missing the point to not have to directly address our views. The fact is, they set Discovery in a period that was already established in canon with an extremely iconic look and proceeded to throw that look basically completely out the window because they wanted to cash in on the boring generic aesthetic of Mass Effect and The Expanse.
The show had the chance to look extremely unique and stylish (as I have been pointing out as well, bright colour and neomodernism is rampaging back into style in contemporary Industrial Design) but ends up just looking like every other generic sci-fi property in current AAA video games and television.
That is not at all relevant to the point I was making, which was that if you're going to market your product as being a prequel to something made decades ago, then make it look like that something; otherwise just call it a reboot.
And whether you are right or wrong about any of that (which I'm pretty sure you're not), what does it have to do with the point I was trying to make?
Yes, it would have worked just fine.
So? A rival Klingon faction that wants to wage war against the Federation is nothing new in Star Trek's history. Granted I agree that it's getting old, but it's not like it'd be unbelievable.
Believable for you, maybe. It was unbelievable in DS9 and even more so to me post-VOY.
I guess some people think if you try to tie same two IPs to Disco over and over again it will become a meme or something. When I watch Disco, I see the most relation to TMP and the Nicolas Meyer films, not any other property. Which is why I have no trouble accepting Discovery being in the same universe as those films. That connection is also made with me because, Discovery is shot like a film and not like a TV show. Perhaps if people rewatched TMP Khan or Undiscovered Country, it might click with them. Instead of rewatching the Cage over and over and wondering why Disco doesn't look retrofuturistic like that does.
Last edited:
That didn't stop them from doing it, however.
Similar threads
