Curious how well the Discovery novels tie in with what's been canonically depicted onscreen!

[TheAlmanac]

Original intent has become irrelevant since the franchise has evolved so that even successive productions have a fairly good idea of how far they can take their innovations in relation to what came before. It doesn’t matter what you or I think or even what Roddenberry thought; these solutions just come together as if by gravity, because the single-universe precedent is so well established.

Given that franchise evolution, it does seem strange to suddenly invoke Roddenberry in this context; many aspects of Star Trek as we understand it now have long since gotten away from his intentions.

I talked about this at considerably greater length over in the "Discovery and the Novelverse" thread, but these choices on the part of Discovery also tack against the general trend in other franchises, which (as you mentioned) currently tend to either maintain a central "gravitational core" of single-universe consistency or use an in-story multiverse to explain incompatible versions of something/someone (so that every version "really" exists).

Overseers of franchises like Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios are now formalising this effort towards such consistency (including visual consistency) by having in-house departments devoted to it--the Head of Visual Development for Marvel Studios was just interviewed on Kevin Smith's podcast this week, and he goes into a lot of detail about how important it is for them not to change previously established elements between movies/series in the MCU and how the studio regrets not establishing that more firmly sooner (so these thoughts are fresh in my mind again ).

As long as I'm making that analogy, nothing makes the changing trend more clear than how the span of time between the premiere of Iron Man and today is equal to the span of time between the premieres of TOS and TMP.

 

[The Wormhole]

I talked about this at considerably greater length over in the "Discovery and the Novelverse" thread, but these choices on the part of Discovery also tack against the general trend in other franchises, which (as you mentioned) currently tend to either maintain a central "gravitational core" of single-universe consistency or use an in-story multiverse to explain incompatible versions of something/someone (so that every version "really" exists).

Something I've been noticing is that older franchises that are putting out new productions seem to be embracing the idea that their original's outdated ideas of "advanced" are in fact still advanced. Like in the latest Terminator whenever we see from Arnold's perspective, it's still done up like a 1980s computer display. Likewise, Star Wars movies like Rogue One or Solo are replicating the OT look the presence of technology which now looks primitive by our standards and compared to what we saw in the Prequels.

 

[Christopher]

Something I've been noticing is that older franchises that are putting out new productions seem to be embracing the idea that their original's outdated ideas of "advanced" are in fact still advanced. Like in the latest Terminator whenever we see from Arnold's perspective, it's still done up like a 1980s computer display. Likewise, Star Wars movies like Rogue One or Solo are replicating the OT look the presence of technology which now looks primitive by our standards and compared to what we saw in the Prequels.

That sort of thing makes sense for Star Wars, which is after all supposed to be A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away and thus doesn't have to track with real-world tech development. It doesn't make sense for something set in Earth's future.

Besides, Star Wars was always retro. From its beginning, it was an exercise in nostalgia for everything from 1930s Flash Gordon serials to 1940s war movies to 1950s Kurosawa movies to 1960s hot rods. So it makes sense for it to keep looking backward. It's a mistake for other franchises to think they have to follow suit, though. Especially Star Trek, which is supposed to be cutting-edge and forward-looking.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

The long speculated (and literary canon) launch date of the Enterprise being 2245 is canon now thanks to Discovery (if you take computer screen graphics as canon).

I do, which is why I believe that the Enterprise-D contains a Porsche, a DC-3, a hamster wheel, and a giant rubber duck.

 

[TheAlmanac]

Something I've been noticing is that older franchises that are putting out new productions seem to be embracing the idea that their original's outdated ideas of "advanced" are in fact still advanced. Like in the latest Terminator whenever we see from Arnold's perspective, it's still done up like a 1980s computer display. Likewise, Star Wars movies like Rogue One or Solo are replicating the OT look the presence of technology which now looks primitive by our standards and compared to what we saw in the Prequels.

Exactly--these are all examples of what I'm talking about, as is the K-9 example mentioned earlier from Doctor Who (and there are numerous other recent examples in that franchise).

With K-9, it was somewhat lampshaded in his first (return) appearance, but increasingly it's just taken as a given. "In A Mirror, Darkly" simply had the 22nd-century characters accept that the 23rd-century technology was far more advanced than their own without commenting on its appearance; you've mentioned Terminator: Dark Fate already, and Blade Runner 2049 took a similar approach to the "Eightiesness" (for lack of a better term) of its technology rather than trying to retcon the look or the timeline of that franchise.

Lucasfilm employees sometimes talk about this as preserving the "texture" of a fictional universe, and I think that's a good way of looking at it. After all, there is a difference between realism and verisimilitude, and all of these fictional universes already ask the audience to buy into a lot of conceits which are at odds with (even conjectural) reality--so people can adjust their expectations between franchises and are already aware of how they're "unrealistic," but each move away from previously-established "rules" (including visual ones) within a given franchise risks making what they've bought into less convincing because of that jarring clash.

 

[fireproof78]

But Star Trek hasn't done that like Star Wars so expecting the same is asking for disappointment.

 

[Tuskin38]

I do, which is why I believe that the Enterprise-D contains a Porsche, a DC-3, a hamster wheel, and a giant rubber duck.

Eh, a date is different from an obvious easter egg.

 

[TheAlmanac]

But Star Trek hasn't done that like Star Wars so expecting the same is asking for disappointment.

When it comes to this thread's topic (tie-ins aligning with what's onscreen, or not), it's fair to say that Star Trek as a franchise hasn't "sold" that idea the way Star Wars has (twice!), but my general point has been that the trend is moving towards transmedia alignment of long-running franchises. As such, anyone claiming Star Trek "can't" do that shouldn't be surprised that people will readily have counterexamples in mind...

...and in terms of its visual language, ST did do that for over twenty years (and continues to do it in some places), so the choices being discussed by Discovery are a departure from the franchise's own precedent (from 1992, at the latest, onwards), some of its current choices elsewhere, and what is increasingly the norm in other franchises.

The disappointment (if you want to call it that) wasn't asked for, but it didn't come out of nowhere.

 

[fireproof78]

When it comes to this thread's topic (tie-ins aligning with what's onscreen, or not), it's fair to say that Star Trek as a franchise hasn't "sold" that idea the way Star Wars has (twice!), but my general point has been that the trend is moving towards transmedia alignment of long-running franchises. As such, anyone claiming Star Trek "can't" do that shouldn't be surprised that people will readily have counterexamples in mind...

...and in terms of its visual language, ST did do that for over twenty years (and continues to do it in some places), so the choices being discussed by Discovery are a departure from the franchise's own precedent (from 1992, at the latest, onwards), some of its current choices elsewhere, and what is increasingly the norm in other franchises.

The disappointment (if you want to call it that) wasn't asked for, but it didn't come out of nowhere.

That's fair but I think that Trek has a place to make those changes due to it connected to our humanity in a more tangible way than Star Wars or Doctor Who.

 

[Christopher]

When it comes to this thread's topic (tie-ins aligning with what's onscreen, or not), it's fair to say that Star Trek as a franchise hasn't "sold" that idea the way Star Wars has (twice!), but my general point has been that the trend is moving towards transmedia alignment of long-running franchises. As such, anyone claiming Star Trek "can't" do that shouldn't be surprised that people will readily have counterexamples in mind...

First off, who said "can't"? I'm saying it doesn't need to, and it's small-minded to assume it has to just because other franchises do it. The message of Star Trek is not "conform blindly." The message is "celebrate diversity."

...and in terms of its visual language, ST did do that for over twenty years (and continues to do it in some places), so the choices being discussed by Discovery are a departure from the franchise's own precedent (from 1992, at the latest, onwards), some of its current choices elsewhere, and what is increasingly the norm in other franchises.

Except that in 1979, ST redesigned everything. The franchise had no problem throwing out its entire design language and replacing it with something wholly new, keeping only the broad strokes. Why was it right to do so then but wrong to do so now? The only difference is that you're more used to the older version.

As I said, the reason for the consistency in the period you're talking about was largely a matter of saving money by reusing existing assets -- also a matter of having many of the same individual designers working on the franchise for a long time. Naturally neither of those is the case any longer (aside from John Eaves sticking around on Kelvin and DSC).

 

[TheAlmanac]

That's fair but I think that Trek has a place to make those changes due to it connected to our humanity in a more tangible way than Star Wars or Doctor Who.

I don't think Star Trek is more "connected to our humanity" than something like Blade Runner (a franchise centred around the question of what it means to be human), but all fiction is ultimately about the human condition anyway...

Franchises can always choose what they're going to choose. I'm really just saying is that these particular choices are at odds with a growing trend for this type of franchise--I'm not sure I can think of a comparably extensive onscreen example from this century, and the closest I can manage in scale for any media (the end of the SW Expanded Universe) happened almost a decade ago. As such, the reactions to and questions about such choices were easily foreseeable even when there isn't some moral component to it.

Discovery itself seems to have gone back on it anyway--after going all-in on such changes in the first season, some walkbacks started in the second and the series relocated its setting in the third. The standing ship sets are the last ongoing sign of the show's original aesthetic, and the rest may just end up like TMP uniforms (which onscreen ST has never bothered revisiting, despite everything else brought back at some point).

We'll see what happens with Strange New Worlds, of course...this can of worms might not be as closed as I'm claiming.

 

[Christopher]

Franchises can always choose what they're going to choose. I'm really just saying is that these particular choices are at odds with a growing trend for this type of franchise--I'm not sure I can think of a comparably extensive onscreen example from this century, and the closest I can manage in scale for any media (the end of the SW Expanded Universe) happened almost a decade ago.

Again, why in the hell should that matter in the slightest? Star Trek should not merely be following other people's trends. Star Trek should be setting the trends. The reason we still care about Star Trek half a century later is because it was exceptional, not typical. It raised the bar of televised science fiction to a new level of sophistication, in terms of both storytelling and production values. Indeed, it did so twice, because nothing really followed in TOS's footsteps (at least not successfully) and the doldrums of SFTV continued until TNG came along and helped usher in a golden age.

As such, the reactions to and questions about such choices were easily foreseeable even when there isn't some moral component to it.

Human folly is always foreseeable. That doesn't make it defensible.

 

[Stevil2001]

I'm glad yet another Treklit thread is here to rehash the same old people's same old arguments about Discovery continuity.

 

[JD]

I think the big difference with Star Trek compared to something like Blade Runner or Star Wars, is that it has a bigger focus on being our future, and trying to develop it's technology based on what kind of things we have now so it makes sense that as new technologies have been developed they would update the show's technology to stay ahead of it.

 

[dupersuper]

Human folly is always foreseeable. That doesn't make it defensible.

Not liking new set designs is "folly"?

 

[fireproof78]

I don't think Star Trek is more "connected to our humanity" than something like Blade Runner (a franchise centred around the question of what it means to be human), but all fiction is ultimately about the human condition anyway...

JD said it better.

I think the big difference with Star Trek compared to something like Blade Runner or Star Wars, is that it has a bigger focus on being our future, and trying to develop it's technology based on what kind of things we have now so it makes sense that as new technologies have been developed they would update the show's technology to stay ahead of it.

Exactly. How often did people claim that Star Trek inspired them, related technological developments to Trek's presentation on screen, and hope for humanity's future, no matter how outlandish. Like the quote from Stephen Hawking when he passed by the warp core set; "I'm working on that/"

Again, why in the hell should that matter in the slightest? Star Trek should not merely be following other people's trends. Star Trek should be setting the trends. The reason we still care about Star Trek half a century later is because it was exceptional, not typical. It raised the bar of televised science fiction to a new level of sophistication, in terms of both storytelling and production values. Indeed, it did so twice, because nothing really followed in TOS's footsteps (at least not successfully) and the doldrums of SFTV continued until TNG came along and helped usher in a golden age.

I agree. I think that Star Trek insisting upon following the trend of continued the same design elements is missing an opportunity to continue the idea of looking to the future. Something that I feel that Trek has done even with installments that had some visual connections.

 

[Tuskin38]

Discovery itself seems to have gone back on it anyway--after going all-in on such changes in the first season,

A lot of designs were apparently requested by the original showrunner, Bryan Fuller, who quit when it was too late to redesign everything.

According to the ship artists (via the Eaglemoss model booklets), he asked them to ignore all the previous Klingon ship designs, not to use round nacelles on Fed ships, and to make them smaller profile.

He's also the one who wanted the Klingon makeup reinvented to make them look more 'alien'.

I don't expect any drastic changes to the art style in Strange New Worlds, they'll want to keep some consistency from Discovery to not alienate the fans who like the changes/differences.

 

[fireproof78]

A lot of designs were apparently requested by the original showrunner, Bryan Fuller, who quit when it was too late to redesign everything.

According to the ship artists (via the Eaglemoss model booklets), he asked them to ignore all the previous Klingon ship designs, not to use round nacelles on Fed ships, and to make them smaller profile.

He's also the one who wanted the Klingon makeup reinvented to make them look more 'alien'.

I don't expect any drastic changes to the art style in Strange New Worlds, they'll want to keep some consistency from Discovery to not alienate the fans who like the changes/differences.

Yeah, a lot of stuff with Discovery design work came from Fuller, and then was left aside as the showrunners changed. So, it's hard to see them continuing forward with those designs. But, I don't think they will change much from what was presented on Season 2.

 

[Mike Doyle]

Most of it was high-level conversations about how the Kelpien culture of "living in fear" would work, what their society would look like, and there's echoes of that in the show. But as a gamer, one of the things I really enjoyed creating with Kirsten Beyer was kaasad, the "memory box" game described in Fear Itself - and there's a neat moment in the Short Treks story "The Brightest Star" where we see some Kelpiens playing with what appears to be kaasad dice.

I’ve just started this and I’m literally on chapter 3 but the Tomal and the Change are giving me major Kelpian / Vahar’ai vibes.

Looking forward to being able to compare what happens.