Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology

[DSG2k]

The bottom line is, the studio sets the rules. They are the ones deciding what is and is not set within any given timeline, and their policy is that DSC, SNW etc are all set within the same original timeline as TOS, TNG etc. Not everyone will agree with that, and that's fine, but when it come to official policy, that's the policy.

I absolutely agree with this, have said as much within this thread, and went on to lament that most folks don't actually listen to the studio folks who convey the policy rules for the "Star Trek Universe".

Indeed, broadly speaking, the issue of obvious discontinuity is a bit of a sideshow. If you alter the universe before adding to it, then it could be a show with perfect continuity created using a time travel device allowing it to be genuine new material from 1967 written by the Genes, acted by Shatner and the gang, et cetera . . . but it would, inevitably, still be alternate.

Such a time-travel-produced alternate just wouldn't be so in-your-face about being alternate, and nobody would really care about the technicality.

By contrast, the obvious discontinuity stuff acts here as an emperor's nudity.

 

[Turtletrekker]

Speaking of "nonsense" . . . I mean, if I were to reply in kind, I'd ask how you even saw the different actors back then, Stevie. Maybe go back to singing about your part-time love of continuity?

Joking aside, you are welcome to spend the mental effort on active denial of the visible, audible, tonal, and storyline differences, things that go well beyond pittances like the recasting of minor characters. Just be glad the full-scale TOS reboot show folks have talked about for after SNW isn't getting made. You'd be in a real pickle trying to handwave that.

For others, such handwaving effort not only deflates any possible enjoyment of the show, but actively suppresses it. Such folks might be able to enjoy it as an alternate universe where they can take what they see as new and unique, which is literally what the producers were trying to create, visually. And they might be able to enjoy the stories shown as not 'bending canon' as one producer suggested, but creating a parallel universe where the old rules and facts need not apply. (Such folks could similarly enjoy a "reimagine" of Master and Commander set on a flat Earth just so long as the producers or other fans weren't confusing it with the original film's universe.)

Heaven forbid.

So yes, I'm sure you find the alternate reality chatter tiring . . . but get comfortable with it, because -- short of a tremendous reset button -- it isn't going anywhere. When you literally alter the contents of the universe before adding your own material, an alternate universe is all it could possibly be, prima facie . . . meaning even without the evidence of our eyes and ears backing that up.

I think I read this exact same post in response to the aesthetic changes made in Star Trek the motion picture back in 1979. All this has happened before and all this will happen again. And again. And again.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It was tiresome then, as well.

 

[Henoch]

I think I read this exact same post in response to the aesthetic changes made in Star Trek the motion picture back in 1979. All this has happened before and all this will happen again. And again. And again.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It was tiresome then, as well.

When they remastered the special effects in TOS-R, they needed to revise all appearances of Klingons in TOS with CGI bumpy heads, too.

 

[DSG2k]

I think I read this exact same post in response to the aesthetic changes made in Star Trek the motion picture back in 1979.

There's just one small problem with your assessment. The studio literally spent hundreds of thousands if not more than a million explaining the vast majority of the changes as in-universe evolution. They did not simply declare it a "reimagine" and dare you to notice.

Had mere handwavium presto-chango been the point of view, then there would have been absolutely no need to have the Enterprise in drydock to explain the new model. Modern Hollywood logic would recoil at spending all that money dollars on the drydock and pod models, visual effects, filming of actor lines, et cetera . . . tens of minutes of screen time are used on the topic. Why did they do it then? Continuity, not handwaving erasure.

The Klingons were left behind, but there was only so much time. It did eventually get taken care of.

It was tiresome then, as well.

I am perfectly willing for both sides to acknowledge that the other side has a point that can be discussed reasonably, but if you have no interest in de-escalation, then carry on with that.

 

[DSG2k]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It was tiresome then, as well.

As tiresome as quotes out of context?

Here's the rest, where Leslie Thompson goes on to try to explain the change, trying to sync up the new look to the existing material, having identified it as one universe. That's the opposite of her going "alternate".

First look at Klingons in 'Star Trek: Discovery'?

If you look at the costumes arranged around the table, this is probably true - they are empty outfits with masks propped on them. Those aren't empty costumes. There's food and drink on the table, and arms & legs are clearly visible. You can even see the feet of the actor on the right, closest...

www.trekbbs.com

 

[Turtletrekker]

As tiresome as quotes out of context?

Here's the rest, where Leslie Thompson goes on to try to explain the change, trying to sync up the new look to the existing material, having identified it as one universe. That's the opposite of her going "alternate".

First look at Klingons in 'Star Trek: Discovery'?

If you look at the costumes arranged around the table, this is probably true - they are empty outfits with masks propped on them. Those aren't empty costumes. There's food and drink on the table, and arms & legs are clearly visible. You can even see the feet of the actor on the right, closest...

www.trekbbs.com

Exactly. She rolls with it. She accepts it. She doesn't go into the lazy knee jerk "oh it must be an alternate reality" explanation that anybody else in the modern day jumps to without hesitation. She devises headcanon. None of which is explicitly stated on the screen. And are you really going to take seriously "The ridges are simply the Klingon spines pushed up over their skulls from constantly being kicked in the backside by the Federation"? Really?

And as for my "part-time love of continuity", perhaps I should introduce you to my 70,000 word and growing document titled "The History of the United Federation of Planets" that I'm working on just to past time and deal with anxiety.

 

[fireproof78]

Let's not clutch pearls after the several messages in a row deriding and mocking those who disagree, e.g. complaining that it is tiring and then strawmanning over mere recasting as being justification of "AlTeRnATe ReAiTy!11!" "nonsense", including your own "Saavik was the real mind breaker."

Humor was the intent.

Not sure if the denial comment was meant in humor

 

[DSG2k]

Exactly. She rolls with it. She accepts it.

That's literally the opposite of how you presented it.

And are you really going to take seriously "The ridges are simply the Klingon spines pushed up over their skulls from constantly being kicked in the backside by the Federation"? Really?

I didn't think I needed to explain that the rest of the page also contained an obvious joke at one point, incorrectly assuming you were not that desperate for something to throw at me.

And as for my "part-time love of continuity"

... a quote from a hypothetical.

 

[fireproof78]

Exactly. She rolls with it. She accepts it. She doesn't go into the lazy knee jerk "oh it must be an alternate reality" explanation that anybody else in the modern day jumps to without hesitation.

This is what I think is missing in fandom at times; any willingness to work with it rather than claim alternative universe because something is different. To me, it is too easy a way out to say that it is an alternate timeline rather be willing to work with it in some measure.

But, I'm the odd one out no doubt because I don't think TMP fits with TOS, and thought Roddenberry's comments on that show being a dramatization of Kirk's logs to be a sign that TOS and TMP were not meant to fit perfectly together.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

Hang on does this mean when SNW officially enters the period of Kirk as Captain that the bridge will look all 60s like?

If that's true this is kind of silly

 

[fireproof78]

Hang on does this mean when SNW officially enters the period of Kirk as Captain that the bridge will look all 60s like?

If that's true this is kind of silly

This is the expectations because of how things look matters at different levels to different people. Or, due to the changes, SNW cannot possibly be in continuity with TOS.

There is a desire to make things perfectly line up and variation is indication of a changed timeline.

Obviously a mileage may vary situation.

 

[Gingerbread Demon]

This is the expectations because of how things look matters at different levels to different people. Or, due to the changes, SNW cannot possibly be in continuity with TOS.

There is a desire to make things perfectly line up and variation is indication of a changed timeline.

Obviously a mileage may vary situation.

Well obviously. I'm glad I'm not dogmatic when it comes to things like this

 

[DarthTimon]

Star Trek is often undergoing revisions in style and appearance. DSC did it quite drastically, but the change with the Klingons from TOS to TMP was quite drastic too, and no one batted an eye for decades. If it had never been explained, would it have somehow become a problem? As I mentioned before, ENT introduced TNG-style stuff, well before it was actually meant to appear. Granted, ENT triggered some passionate discussions around continuity as well, but no one treats it like a separate timeline or alternate continuity, as I mentioned one of my prior posts.

That's despite some glaring continuity issues with previously-established Star Trek lore.

In the end, fans will do what we want, and see what we want, and there will never be a fan consensus. No one is right, no one is wrong, can't we all just get along?

(I'm out of poetry now, no more rhyming, so don't have a cow)

 

[fireproof78]

Well obviously. I'm glad I'm not dogmatic when it comes to things like this

I don't think it's dogmatism as much as what is given weight. For some, the visuals carry far more weight than others.

For me, in my experience, Trek has always done visual modifications and updates as technology allows. The ENTERPRISE, the Klingons, the Trill, and recasts are all part of the package so I don't assume a visual change means a timeline change.

For others, the visuals are a history and demand adherence in order to remain in the timeline. Now, I'll grant that can matter because I don't treat TOS as in the same lines as TMP because some of the changes don't fit well.

@DarthTimon makes some good points that largely echo my frustration in how grace has been given in the past vs now. People complained for sure (seems to be a fandom staple no one wants to leave behind) but there was not the push for it to be regarded as a separate timeline. There was flexibility and adaptability.

That seems to fall by the way side now.

 

[TIN_MAN]

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, it occurs to me that the differing views on this might be largely generational. IOW, older fans who grew up with TOS & TAS are more likely to want it to look the same and thus feel the need to justify changes, whereas younger fans are more likely to accept a visual or narrative retcon without a lot of handwaving. So, it would be interesting to see where the age demographics fall on these two opposing POV.

 

[DarthTimon]

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, it occurs to me that the differing views on this might be largely generational. IOW, older fans who grew up with TOS & TAS are more likely to want it to look the same and thus feel the need to justify changes, whereas younger fans are more likely to accept a visual or narrative retcon. So, it would be interesting to see where the age demographics fall on these two opposing POV.

I'm a 40-something fan, weened on TNG, so to speak. I don't know if that places me in the old or young camp!

 

[TIN_MAN]

I'm a 40-something fan, weened on TNG, so to speak. I don't know if that places me in the old or young camp!

Perhaps we can use the turn of the millennium to demarcate between "old-school" fans verses the newer crop "weaned" on JJ and Kurtzman Trek? Although then there's still ST: Ent. to deal with in the former case.

 

[DarthTimon]

Perhaps we can use the turn of the millennium to demarcate between "old-school" fans verses the newer crop "weaned" on JJ and Kurtzman Trek? Although then there's still ST: Ent. to deal with in the former case.

I don't even know if we need to create a division within the fanbase, though I know that's not where you're coming from. We're all Star Trek fans, regardless of where and how we found the franchise. I've seen enough people try to differentiate the fanbase with references to 'nu-Trek' fans to last a lifetime.

But yes, age could be a factor in why some fans are passionate about visual continuity, and others aren't. Then again, my mother, who is in her 70s, and a fan of the original from the start, has no problem with DSC, SNW etc.

 

[fireproof78]

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, it occurs to me that the differing views on this might be largely generational. IOW, older fans who grew up with TOS & TAS are more likely to want it to look the same and thus feel the need to justify changes, whereas younger fans are more likely to accept a visual or narrative retcon without a lot of handwaving. So, it would be interesting to see where the age demographics fall on these two opposing POV.

I grew up with TOS on VHS and with Mego figures and such. I got in to DS9 because of Trials and Tribble-ations. I had mostly TOS figures and pretend play as a youngster and made up my own Security Chief character.

And yet, I have no struggle with SNW. Maybe I would have in my younger years but now? SNW is ok even with visual changes.

 

[Nerys Myk]

At the risk of adding fuel to the fire, it occurs to me that the differing views on this might be largely generational. IOW, older fans who grew up with TOS & TAS are more likely to want it to look the same and thus feel the need to justify changes, whereas younger fans are more likely to accept a visual or narrative retcon without a lot of handwaving. So, it would be interesting to see where the age demographics fall on these two opposing POV.

I'm in my sixties and watched TOS first run. I've always rolled with the changes. Sure I might play the head canon thing and make up a reason why X, Y or Z was altered. But if the folks running the franchise come up with their own reason or no reason at all, I'm cool with it. I don't think it's generational. Some of the oldest and youngest people on the board share similar mindsets when it comes to "retcons" be it positive or negative. Those that take a literalist approach will probably balk at any changes. While those who are more interpretive are more inclined to roll with the changes.