Well if anyone even cared about the change to the Klingon makeup they would've made a two-parter explaining it.
Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology
- Thread starter Astrostars2025
- Start date
25 years later.
It took them a while to get around to it, because they had to take time explaining all the other visual inconsistencies first, like... uh...
The shows changed whenever they could afford it. And whey couldn't, they reused sets. Or do we really need believe that the top of the line Galaxy class has the same interiors as the refit Constitution.They did, huh?
And until that point, Gene himself at the time said that the TMP Klingons were the way they'd always looked, they just didn't have the money for better makeup during TOS.
It made a nice throwaway gag in DS9, but Enterprise never should've done that Augment Virus episode.
I enjoyed those episodes.
For better or worse, Relics (a really good episode) confirmed that the TOS aesthetic hadn't been retconned away and Trials and Tribble-ations (one of the all-time best episodes) finally gave us a definitive on-screen statement about the Klingons.
Then Enterprise really pulled itself together in its final year, giving us a story featuring a Constitution class ship and a story about why the Klingon makeup changed, both written by Mike Sussman, arguably Enterprise's greatest writer, both getting great scores.
I'm not seeing mistakes here, I'm seeing consistent success with every attempt they made to tie the eras together. And series like Prodigy have continued this success with episodes like All the World's a Stage. I really think Strange New Worlds should get on board with this and firmly tie itself in with TOS by the end, because otherwise it's just setting itself apart. Or it could just end without contradicting anything, that would be fine too.
Then Enterprise really pulled itself together in its final year, giving us a story featuring a Constitution class ship and a story about why the Klingon makeup changed, both written by Mike Sussman, arguably Enterprise's greatest writer, both getting great scores.
I'm not seeing mistakes here, I'm seeing consistent success with every attempt they made to tie the eras together. And series like Prodigy have continued this success with episodes like All the World's a Stage. I really think Strange New Worlds should get on board with this and firmly tie itself in with TOS by the end, because otherwise it's just setting itself apart. Or it could just end without contradicting anything, that would be fine too.
SNW has already firmly tied itself to TOS and hasn't contradicted ANYTHING. It's just a modern art style.
The episodes you mentioned that showed the old art style were episodes entirely based on nostalgia. The old look was a gimic.
I'd argue you cannot make an entire series based around that gimic, not if you want to come off as anywhere approaching a modern series.
That SNW managed to walk that line between retro AND modern looking, is something that should be celebrated. It looks like TOS! It looks and feels like classic Star Trek! But yet it still manages to be entirely modern and look like an natural progression from what we saw in Enterprise.
Having a show where everything still looked like 1966 is a wonderful gimic if you want to fuel nostalgic old Trekkies for a bit. it's exactly why we saw the USS New Jersey. But for a modern series? That gimic would look silly and once the nostalgia wears off and you're left with a show that looks old and dated.
This is what it looks like when you have the same room depicted in different art styles. What you're talking about is something different.
Yes.
And indeed, "retro" is the term that people have been looking for, meaning "an old-fashioned vision of the future."
Trying to apply the term period piece is nonsense, for the reason stated: period piece means set in a historical period, and in something make-believe set in an imaginary future we're not talking about history.
It's all art. A different artistic vision. A different visual aesthetic. It's still just a different art style from the one you want.
This is what it looks like when you have the same room depicted in different art styles. What you're talking about is something different.
An established vision of the future.
'Period piece' is the term people keep coming back to because historical dramas are praised for their authenticity when reconstructing a world.
That's one way to do it. What you haven't shown is that it's the only way to do it. You haven't shown that what @HotRod said is not also meaningful. The idea of a "modern art style" as distinct from an "old art style" is really very broad and admits many variations that you have not shown must be excluded.
This is what it looks like when you have the same room depicted in different art styles. What you're talking about is something different.
Then people should use terms in ways that actually make sense, in order to express the points they're trying to express. I offer the term fidelity [sense 1b] as an option.
No one has ever bought a Star Trek toy and thought "Ah, it's a version of this object as it is interpreted by the visual style of Star Trek: The Next Generation, of course the exact same object would be entirely different in a different Trek series".
They might have thought it was a bit of a rubbish looking toy, but that's different.
They might have thought it was a bit of a rubbish looking toy, but that's different.
I bet they did when it was TAS we were talking about.
It's a little simplified for animation, but that's pretty much the same object in a different art style, not a reinterpretation.
Again, one example does not settle the argument, when there are a hundred other examples to consider: characters, uniforms, compartments on the ship (the bridge, sickbay, engineering, etc.), ship exteriors, not to mention sound effects.
It's a little simplified for animation, but that's pretty much the same object in a different art style, not a reinterpretation.
Doesn't look all that different from this.
It's a little simplified for animation, but that's pretty much the same object in a different art style, not a reinterpretation.
Similar threads
