It's always subjective. It's art.
Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology
- Thread starter Astrostars2025
- Start date
Yeah, that never washed with me either. Recent and upcoming shows are using "outdated" effects and sets and they look beautiful. Not much needs to change to make things look fantastic.This personal sniping needs to stop now. I realize this is a debate that nobody can really win, and I'll post some of my own thoughts separately. But I want everyone in the thread to settle down a bit.
Speaking only for myself, I'm in general agreement with a lot of this.I think SNW does a pretty good job of updating many of the TOS elements, and does so far better than the early seasons of Discovery. Which is not to say I find some of those aesthetics bad either, but I totally understand the complaint that they don't look like they fit into a TOS era prequel.
I'm of the mind, personally, that it would also be possible to use straight TOS effects successfully like what was done twice in later series (in DS9 and in ENT); the argument that modern viewers would see it as too outdated doesn't really wash with me, because if that were generally true they wouldn't be able to enjoy the visuals in TOS. Every series is naturally a product of its time.
I also understand the complaint that sometimes the show runners don't necessarily have good explanations for how visual changes and other things in modern series, and that too comes with the territory. I myself have never liked how the Klingon appearance in "Trials" was treated as if Bashir and O'Brien had never seen non-ridged Klingons, because the whole thing is rather silly and could have been ignored. But that's me.
To use a non-Trek example of crazy visual problems, one could read through some of the IDW Transformers comics. For various reasons, if you follow the issues regularly, one of the problems you notice is that the art style is seldom consistent. Characters will sometimes switch designs between issues with practically no explanation, often because in RL they had a newer toy released, and then a few issues later they'll switch again to a model that isn't accurate to their prior comic models or to an existing toy variation. There's a point in the All Hail Megatron arc where the majority of characters suddenly have their G1 style character models for a bit.
Oddly, one of the few times such a change actually had story relevance, the change wound up being unusually short despite the new form being a lot more badass. Megatron got beaten to the point of near death by Optimus, losing his G1 body, and Shockwave transferred his mind into a sweet jet body. Megatron then had his G1 form turned into human scaled copies of his pistol mode and made sure they were distributed to humans who feared all Transformers, with the goal that Prime would either have to stop the Decepticons or fight and harm humans who were otherwise innocent. He only kept the jet body for a few issues, for whatever reason.
This isn't to suggest that the IDW stories are less enjoyable. Only that the art style can be confusing over time even to a nerd like me who's very familiar with the lore. Some of that was due to Hasbro having certain requirements related to the toys, some of it is simply different art styles by different artists.
To IDW's credit, it's not uncommon for one set of art styles to stay reasonably consistent if the same artists work on the whole arc, and their story continuity is independent of the original 1980s setting of the starting franchise. So there's no continuity problems if the story is set in the modern day and Starscream turns into an F-22 instead of an F-15. They even did some interesting visual things with Shockwave's origins, establishing that his Decepticon form was originally a form of punishment by the corrupt pre-war Senate for leaking information to outsiders. They basically put his mind into a new, seemingly more primitive body while also severing his emotional core, unwittingly making the new Shockwave into a being of purely evil logic.
Mileages will vary on that one.
With all this talk of Goldsman and Myers wanting to continue into their own version of TOS (or TOS year one, I don't know) with these sets and crew, it stands to reason that this isn't a strict version of the years before TOS. The intention just isn't there to make it so, even if the company line still stands. They want to reinvent it, and make it new, so the best of luck to them in that regard.
(Guys, I'm not saying it's a different timeline here, just pointing out the obvious artistic differences. So, be aware)
However, Imagine a scenario where Goldsman was given a truck-load of cash and told to make more TOS movie-era films. The bridge and corridors would all be different, with a subtle hint of Richard Taylor here and there. Much, much larger too, for multiple reasons. Lots of strip lighting, I'd imagine.
Things would be different. And because of the intentional differences, it's quite excusable for some fans to not quite treat it as part of the old continuity. Some brand new fans could find it jarring to jump from SNW to TOS to TMP too.
(Maybe this is also a visual learning thing for some people, like myself? No clue.)
But standing in the shoes of the other team, whats really the problem with visual changes to familiar eras? Who sets these rules, anyway? Just because there are other franchises that don't do it, it doesn't mean that this one can't.
Anyway, there's probably a dividing line between those who see Trek as its own defined little universe that moves forward with its own changes as technology gets better in real life VS our actual future that needs to update Kirk/Spock/the Enterprise of the 23rd Century to stay relevant.
That could be it.
This is probably a more accurate statement.
Again, purely me, I don't treat Trek as something that is defined by this small universe rules, but one that is connected to our universe. So, it's not surprising that things get updated. Especially with the attitude taken by TMP then TNG then TWOK.
But, again, I don't treat it with a historian's rigor. Hell, even films and shows based on our own history don't get it right; MASH is way off and has several anachronisms. Gladiator isn't even close. Star Trek isn't something I put to this line.
Mileage clearly varies.
TMP costumes and all I accepted but not the idea that the series was only three years previously. But the Khan costume onwards I never really liked. Too bulky and military looking.
JB
JB
To some fans, Star Trek is more than a TV show, it's a religion. I can understand that; Star Trek means so much to me I cannot put it into words, but for some it's a truth, a bible of sorts, to be interpreted literally. To other fans, it's about the messaging, the values, the characters. Like you said, the mileage varies.
Acting is art, but as with any art there are objective facts . . . these words were said, the brow is furrowed, there was an expression change involving upturned corners of the mouth and a display of teeth, et cetera.
Interpreting nuances of the art and the meaning is subjective. Was that change of expression a smile or has it been reimagined as a grimace? No amount of objective analysis of an actor's face or comparison against known, agreed-upon smiles will alter the opinion of it being a grimace if that choice has been made, and likewise no amount of cajoling will produce a belief in a grimace where a smile was always self-evident.
Ergo, "as there will undoubtedly be no convincing either way -- we'll leave that one be."
Since this misses the point I will have to agree now.
And yet the Bible, and indeed all religious texts, tend to be abound with inconsistencies and have had many reinterpretations over the centuries and yet are still considered capital C Canon. While Star Trek canon, lowercase c, is often met with rigid literalism. It's not scripture, it's fiction. And even scripture bends in places.
Last edited:
I have easier times discussing biblical interpretation than Star Trek some times.
It's not like continuity is something unique to Star Trek. Every series typically tries to stay consistent with what came before!
Which is the reason why I've always subscribed to this particular notion.
It's all equal.
LOL, The Office has a more on point joke about that
The original series isn't even consistent with itself in a lot of places.
Not as much as fans imagine. And even good series will ignore continuity in the name of drama and entertainment.
Everything a series does is in the name of drama and entertainment, good choices and bad ones.
Strict adherence to minutiae, putting minor canonical details over the story at hand that's being told In the moment, would be a bad decision.
Correct, and ignoring continuity is a part of this package. Trek has done it, even within series, and especially across series. It is the nature of entertainment to ignore minor details in the name of a story.
The bigger question is how much this impacts personal enjoyment. In my humble opinion, my observations of Trek fandom and such means putting up more barriers to entertainment rather than seeking to enjoy it.
Indeed, the 4 gospels themselves show slightly different versions of the same story.
but as for "It's not scripture, it's fiction"
<Tamarian> Pam, with the pictures, a difference unseen. <Tamarian>
Similar threads
