Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread

[Precious Tritium]

A year or two ago they did a Super Bowl ad that included all the Trek they were currently producing, including SNW, but it wasn't exactly a trailer.

Maybe they'll do something like that again.

 

[SJGardner]

Do these sets of productions exclude the picture, the video, the very film itself? You wrote that canon has nothing ever ever to do with the visuals, so what else is it then?

You keep arguing based on the assumption that canon is something that can be "violated", that if something becomes a part of it, then it is "established", and anything that would contradict that specific part (like the Enterprise looking one specific way at one specific point of the timeline) would then contradict the canon itself.

That's unfortunately not how it works. Something is either part of the canon because it is declared to be a part of it by the holder of the copyright, or it isn't. Canonicity doesn't say anything about continuity or consistency. Two series where the Enterprise looks wildly different can be part of the same canon and it's entirely the individual viewer's decision whether they decide that's an inconsistency they need to resolve internally, need an official explanation for either in or out of universe, or if they just shrug and accept it as a folly of fiction. But these are all just part of how an individual viewer consumes and interprets the product and don't say anything about it being canon or not.

 

[eschaton]

Bashir: Out of all the episodes you showed me, which ones were canon and which ones weren't?
Garak: My dear doctor, they were all canon.
Bashir: Even the inconsistencies?
Garak: Especially the inconsistencies.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Bashir: Out of all the episodes you showed, me, which ones were canon and which ones weren't?
Garak: My dear doctor, they were all canon.
Bashir: Even the inconsistencies?
Garak: Especially the inconsistencies.

And we have a winner!

 

[Lord Garth]

If people are too hung up about this, I have a solution: Don't think of it as a TOS Prequel. Think of it as a DSC Spin-Off. That'll get you through your day and allow you to judge SNW based on whether or not it's good, not whether or not it's canon.

I have three criteria for Strange New Worlds and only three:

[ _ ] Did I like this week's episode?
[ _ ] Do I like the characters?
[ _ ] Do I want to see more of this show?

If the answers to all three are "yes", then I'm satisfied.

 

[BillJ]

Bashir: Out of all the episodes you showed me, which ones were canon and which ones weren't?
Garak: My dear doctor, they were all canon.
Bashir: Even the inconsistencies?
Garak: Especially the inconsistencies.

Which means that the Abrams films are also canon.

If people are too hung up about this, I have a solution: Don't think of it as a TOS Prequel. Think of it as a DSC Spin-Off. That'll get you through your day and allow you to judge SNW based on whether or not it's good, not whether or not it's canon.

I’m just going to treat it as a far future sequel to Hell on Wheels.

Actually, I’m just going to judge it on its own merits.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Which means that the Abrams films are also canon.

Of course they are. They've been referred to twice in modern Trek shows.

 

[Admiral Archer]

If people are too hung up about this, I have a solution: Don't think of it as a TOS Prequel. Think of it as a DSC Spin-Off. That'll get you through your day and allow you to judge SNW based on whether or not it's good, not whether or not it's canon.

I have three criteria for Strange New Worlds and only three:

[ _ ] Did I like this week's episode?
[ _ ] Do I like the characters?
[ _ ] Do I want to see more of this show?

If the answers to all three are "yes", then I'm satisfied.

I would personally add that it could work as a TMP prequel just as easily as a DSC Spin-Off. After all, Discovery still works as a prequel to the classic Star Trek films, heck a Crossfield-class refit of sorts even shows up in Spacedock in "Star Trek III".

As an aside, I find it particularly strange that fans who grew up with TNG, DS9, Voyager and Enterprise and have expressed a disdain for TOS would choose to fight so hard to protect the 60's visual continuity as if it were some Holy Grail to be protected. It's so weird, like, you don't even care that much about TOS, it should make you happy that newer Trek productions are updating the look to make it cooler. Granted, there are also fans who grew up with TOS who think visual continuity is sacred or something, but I just see them as being set in their ways.

If Star Trek is to, forgive me, live long and prosper, then it needs a visual update every decade or so.

 

[seigezunt]

I wish people could just enter into this in the same frame of mind that some of us have with the novels, or the comics, or what some of us did each time a new show diverted from our own perception of how the canon fits together: just roll with it. It's never going to be a perfect fit. Appreciate the stories, or not, for their own merit, and not get so wound up about decades-old trivia. I'm pretty sure SNW isn't going to fit up with my head canon or the novelverse versions of how, say, Uhura came aboard the Enterprise. I was briefly wound up that Enterprise didn't look like Forbidden Planet. I've had time to consider that was a dumb take, and that rolling with Enterprise turned into enjoyment, and observing that it's my kid's favorite classic Trek show. I was irritated with how FC handled Zefram Cochcrane, but you roll with it.

We don't even have a trailer and people are being, well, that.

 

[Precious Tritium]

This thread moves pretty fast, and a lot of useless stuff is discussed, so forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but it looks like Nami Melumad is scoring SNW.

https://twitter.com/strangenewpod/status/1491966056281354242?s=21

 

[137th Gebirg]

Welcome to the wonderfully pedantic world of Star Trek!

 

[BillJ]

...
for TOS would choose to fight so hard to protect the 60's visual continuity as if it were some Holy Grail to be protected

A lot of people put a lot of hard work into those visuals people are so eager to toss in the dustbin. That distinctive look is what captured a lot of people’s imaginations.

 

[fireproof78]

I wish people could just enter into this in the same frame of mind that some of us have with the novels, or the comics, or what some of us did each time a new show diverted from our own perception of how the canon fits together: just roll with it. It's never going to be a perfect fit. Appreciate the stories, or not, for their own merit, and not get so wound up about decades-old trivia. I'm pretty sure SNW isn't going to fit up with my head canon or the novelverse versions of how, say, Uhura came aboard the Enterprise. I was briefly wound up that Enterprise didn't look like Forbidden Planet. I've had time to consider that was a dumb take, and that rolling with Enterprise turned into enjoyment, and observing that it's my kid's favorite classic Trek show. I was irritated with how FC handled Zefram Cochcrane, but you roll with it.

It's all a matter of what value you find in the fictional world. As much as I find value in characters others find value in the fictional details maintaining the vague appearance of consistency.

For me, I have had to abandon this point of view since beginning studying history. There are a lot of assumptions around historical figures that I grew up with that are not 100% accurate as you study. There are a lot of inconsistencies in history and sometimes the exact nature of the historical world is not going to be perfectly known. So, for me, I adopt the attitude that what I think might have been, the interpretations by others and then the actually reality is all going to be a little bit different. And that's OK.

With Star Trek I have adopted a "close enough" attitude with a lot of different aspects. Does it look like this Star Trek thing I am familiar with? Enterprise, Klingons, Romulans, etc, all are mutable in a certain way because the larger defining characteristics are recognizable enough. And no, I don't go to the hyperbolic extremes of "Well, if they say Kirk was Gorn always would you treat that the same?" because that's not what I am arguing for. I am arguing for close enough. And it also is a matter of my own investment in to the shared history of the larger world, which I do find value in. But, I also find value in art and creativity and dramatic presentation. If Star Trek is to be a strict literal history then I could imagine an argument to be made for recreating TOS sets but I would also say that a lot of dramatic elements need to be excised too.

A lot of people put a lot of hard work into those visuals people are so eager to toss in the dustbin. That distinctive look is what captured a lot of people’s imaginations.

But it's not be dustbinned. It still exists, remains intact, as part of the larger history, and clearly inspires the current artists even as they provide their own interpretation of the material. That's the point of art is to not faithfully recreate everything but to bring in your own point of view.

 

[Turtletrekker]

A lot of people put a lot of hard work into those visuals people are so eager to toss in the dustbin. That distinctive look is what captured a lot of people’s imaginations.

Updating visuals for a modern audience does nothing to disrespect the work of those who came in the past. Hell, I would be willing to bet that they would be the first to agree with me. Even further hell, they would probably jump at the chance to update them with modern tech themselves.

 

[BillJ]

...and clearly inspires the current artists even as they provide their own interpretation of the material.

Much like the writing, I don’t see any inspiration, just kitbashing of what they think are popular elements to sell their trinkets. Much of it has an almost soulless feel to it.

 

[fireproof78]

Updating visuals for a modern audience does nothing to disrespect the work of those who come in the past. Hell, I would be willing to bet that they would be the first to agree with me. Even further hell, they would probably jump at the chance to update them with modern tech themselves.

Indeed. "Respect" has come to mean "strict adherence" rather than allowing for individual artistic interpretation. I've know many artists over the years and few enjoy getting in to art to replicate perfectly past art.

Much like the writing, I don’t see any inspiration, just kitbashing of what they think are popular elements to sell their trinkets. Much of it has an almost soulless feel to it.

Mileage will vary.

Inspiration exists at multiple levels. Strict adherence to the past would be more souless to me.

 

[cooleddie74]

What I would have done - not that anyone asked but hey, that's what this board was designed for - was do more or less what ENT did for the TOS Defiant. Recreate the original 1960s aesthetic largely unchanged but expand on what we saw in TOS by making the bridge station indicator light readouts touchscreen displays that you can touch to bring up additional information before returning to the blinky indicator lights. Make the desktop computers more "modern" with little digital beeps and buzzes. Have the overhead display screens at each station be dynamic flatscreen monitors that show constantly changing graphs, stellar images and data.

There are ways of keeping the old and making it all just fresh and new enough to make it feel fresh for a modern audience. Sure, the panels have tons of multicolored blinking lights but now they show more than that.

 

[Turtletrekker]

I do wish that the Enterprise Bridge as depicted on Discovery were a little more subdued. Too many flashing red lights. But it it has similar lines and colors and it evokes the feel of that bridge set enough that when I first saw it, it gave me chills. I don't need a slavish re-creation, I just need those chills.

 

[Noname Given]

Of course they are. They've been referred to twice in modern Trek shows.

As well as the participation of a classic TOS character played by the original actor: Mister Spock / Leonard Nimoy.

Their place in Star Trek Canon was never in question.

 

[SJGardner]

Indeed. "Respect" has come to mean "strict adherence" rather than allowing for individual artistic interpretation. I've know many artists over the years and few enjoy getting in to art to replicate perfectly past art.

Mileage will vary.

Inspiration exists at multiple levels. Strict adherence to the past would be more souless to me.

Hell, my own national government has spent the last decade and more than a billion dollars of taxpayer's money to tear down modern civic buildings that exhibit considerable artistic value as examples of modernist architecture from the communist era and sometimes even modern additions to existing 19th century office and residential buildings, just so that they could replace them with "faithful reconstructions" of the original, historic and therefore "more beautiful" baroque revival edifices that end up being squeaky-clean historicist façades (albeit painstakingly reconstructed façades) on concrete frames and house nothing but empty conference centres and overpriced restaurants, cafés and state-owned luxury folk art stores that no one ever visits after the politicians arrive there once to cut the ribbon on live TV. Almost everyone agrees that they look soulless and artificial, and our capital is losing bits of its soul with every "restoration". But as far as our government is concerned, all is well, because the original, "true look" of the city that the communists have robbed us of by utilizing 20th century styles in 20th century buildings has been "restored."