Will We Ever See The 1990s Star Trek Aesthetic Again? Or Hear that “humm” Sound When No One Speaks?

[Boris Skrbic]

Why can't those darn kids today listen to the music I liked when I was their age?

Not the same at all, since if you don’t like the music of the 1990s, you’re free to listen to that of the 2020s, but if you don’t like whatever from the 2250s… well, it didn’t exist! It’s always been the way I like it in the 2020s. My decade is relevant now, and no, I don’t want the 2390s, it has to be the 2250s!

Back to the topic: we don’t ever need to see the 1990s aesthetic again, but we don’t need the safety net of legacy characters like those from SNW either. Keeping Star Trek period warts and all allows one to retain a fixed official timeline AND justly fail if one cannot generate more interest in brand-new characters from the 2390s than in legacy characters from updated 2250s.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Back to the topic: we don’t ever need to see the 1990s aesthetic again, but we don’t need the safety net of legacy characters like those from SNW either.

Except that they're not digging up the corpses of the actors to play those characters.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Except that they're not digging up the corpses of the actors to play those characters.

I said “characters”, not “actors”. We may never see a legacy aesthetic again, but we’ll surely see legacy characters again, because they make it that much safer to pitch the next show to fans who don’t trust those in charge to create interesting characters and situations regardless of fictional century. DSC in the future should’ve been enough, the one Star Trek event that defined 2017+. Why isn’t it?

 

[CorporalClegg]

but we’ll surely see legacy characters again,

With different actors.

These versions of the characters are not the same as the former version of the characters. Just like these versions of the sets are not the same as the former versions of the sets.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

With different actors.

These versions of the characters are not the same as the former version of the characters. Just like these versions of the sets are not the same as the former versions of the sets.

But why do they even have to be versions of the characters or sets? The showrunners should be trusted to outdo everything that came before even if they have to do it in the 2390s or later. Are we saying that fans don’t trust the showrunners to surprise them with something better than Pike’s crew on a mission, and the showrunners don’t trust themselves to do so either, or the property owners don’t trust the showrunners?

 

[dupersuper]

Are we saying that fans don’t trust the showrunners to surprise them with something better than Pike’s crew on a mission

Welll..................

 

[Tuskin38]

but we don’t need the safety net of legacy characters like those from SNW either.

It's not really a safety net when 2 of the main characters only had 2 episodes to their name before Discovery brought them back.

We know nearly nothing about Pike or Number One from the other series, and also very little about Spock during the period between The Cage and main TOS.

Most of the rest of the cast are probably original characters as well, not legacy.

 

[cooleddie74]

Yeah, aside from maybe Dr. Boyce and Yeoman Colt I don't think we will be getting legacy characters. Unless José Tyler gets featured in the new series and five years after the events of "The Cage(TOS)" he may no longer be serving aboard the Enterprise.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

Spock is all the safety net the show needs, which is playing into the post-ENT notion that Star Trek needs to draw audiences with key characters or concepts rather than win and maintain trust through innovative execution regardless of what it does, which would allow it to be set in the 2390s with no updates to prior eras. We’d see the aesthetic that is correct for our time, which would match particular years in-universe, and within those years the showrunner in question would accomplish amazing things.

In essence, the shift needs to be towards writers who become showrunners as the actual stars, not characters or actors. If no such showrunners can be found, the franchise would simply take a break rather than crank out an array of middling to competent shows like the Arrowverse.

 

[Tuskin38]

Spock is all the safety net the show needs,

He really isn't. Using Spock is a minefield.

 

[Mudd]

In essence, the shift needs to be towards writers who become showrunners as the actual stars, not characters or actors.

No showrunner is ever the star attraction - not Sorkin, not Nolan, not Roddenberry. People watch TV shows week after week because they like the people onscreen.

 

[Noname Given]

Nah, the Eugenics Wars still happened between 1993 and 1996. It doesn't have to make sense to us. It's fiction. It's an alternate history of Earth and always will be by definition of Star Trek being science fiction written by people living in the modern age making things up.

ENT clearly said the genetic engineering of the Eugenics Wars era was from the late 20th century. It's fiction. It doesn't matter if it really happened 25 years ago.

You just excise anything related to Star Trek Voyager and you're fine.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

He really isn't. Using Spock is a minefield.

People drawn to a show because they know Spock tend not to stop watching when they disagree with a particular decision. They want to see more of Spock and what is done with Spock even if they’re involved enough to later go on The Trek BBS and say exactly what they thought of it. That may not work if instead you try and fail to create the next Spock — viewers could turn out to be indifferent to your character.

No showrunner is ever the star attraction - not Sorkin, not Nolan, not Roddenberry. People watch TV shows week after week because they like the people onscreen.

That may have been prevalent in the 1980s and earlier, but not in fandom and especially not these days with the internet, when people who like a particular show can easily find out how the sausage was made, then check out a different show because the same showrunner was involved. Besides, should Star Trek target audiences who couldn’t care less about a quality package from a specific creative team, but instead would rather see that particular character or actor regardless of how they’re written or filmed? It may work for fans, but such a show isn’t going to make a mark in television history.

 

[Mudd]

People drawn to a show because they know Spock tend not to stop watching when they disagree with a particular decision. They want to see more of Spock and what is done with Spock even if they’re involved enough to later go on The Trek BBS and say exactly what they thought of it. That may not work if instead you try and fail to create the next Spock — viewers could turn out to be indifferent to your character.



That may have been prevalent in the 1980s and earlier, but not in fandom and especially not these days with the internet, when people who like a particular show can easily find out how the sausage was made, then check out a different show because the same showrunner was involved.

That's a plausible-sounding rhetorical construction, but it's not true. The numbers of people who care about that still cannot keep a show on the air.

 

[cooleddie74]

You just excise anything related to Star Trek Voyager and you're fine.

Eh. Los Angeles and the United States just weren't directly affected by the Eugenics Wars. Since there's a model of a DY-100 sleeper ship in Rain Robinson's SETI laboratory I'm pretty sure the creators stuck that Easter Egg in there to remind us that, yes, we're not going to MENTION them but the Eugenics Wars are happening around the time our heroes visit 1996 Los Angeles.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

That's a plausible-sounding rhetorical construction, but it's not true. The numbers of people who care about that still cannot keep a show on the air.

In the streaming age, most shows target highly specific, involved audiences, usually on the basis of their viewing history. Even if most viewers were casual, there is no need to sacrifice innovation for legacy characters and concepts with a new coat of paint, instead of making sure that one’s original characters are well-written and acted so the show becomes the next Lost or Game of Thrones.

This is where showrunners come in even if parts of the audience don’t pay attention to their names. If the whole package doesn’t make a dent, in the long term it doesn’t matter for how long a show was being released. If we want only the best for Star Trek rather than simply more Star Trek, then we need reasonable longevity combined with impact beyond the core fandom.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Eh. Los Angeles and the United States just weren't directly affected by the Eugenics Wars. Since there's a model of a DY-100 sleeper ship in Rain Robinson's SETI laboratory I'm pretty sure the creators stuck that Easter Egg in there to remind us that, yes, we're not going to MENTION them but the Eugenics Wars are happening around the time our heroes visit 1996 Los Angeles.

There's also a Talosian action figure, implying everything post-"The Cage" is a Tallosian illusion.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

There's also a Talosian action figure, implying everything post-"The Cage" is a Tallosian illusion.

The Talosians don’t look precisely like that according to DSC’s overwrite, so I’m sure that was just an alien from “some kind of star trek”.

 

[Tuskin38]

Was that a Talosian figure? I thought it was just a generic big head alien.

The Talosians don’t look precisely like that according to DSC’s overwrite, so I’m sure that was just an alien from “some kind of star trek”.

It’s not an overwrite it’s just a different visual interpretation. We see the original designs in the previously on segment. Both are equally valid designs for the species.

 

[Boris Skrbic]

It’s an overwrite since the original live-action interpretation isn’t coming back, at least not in the foreseeable future (unless the next “Supreme Court” decides that Star Trek should be period after all, and goes all Solo and/or Forrest Gump when portraying elements from TOS). Had DSC needed to extend “The Cage” segment with new dialogue and action, they would’ve of course remade it with the new cast to match DSC style, which has also been referenced on PIC.

The Star Trek production continuity is being revised all the time, and the latest version means matching DSC wherever the Talosians need to be depicted realistically (as opposed to comic art or animation, which can understandably vary between artists). When that changes, our hypotheses and theories will change accordingly.