Disco's version of TOS/TAS: Differences

[Rahul]

Also: Each show will always look very much like the time period it was produced in anyway: TOS will always look like a 60s show. The TOS movies like a 70s production. TNG had a very 80s look, VOY and DS9 a 90s look, and ENT a 00's look.

And DIS, well, DIS will always look like an early 2000's series with early CGI graphics as well.

There is no reason to update the look from an older series to a "newer" one, if that one is going to be dating the series so much as well. TOS doesn't suddenly look better if we pretend it always looked like an 80s show instead of a 60s show. And DIS' version of the Enterprise looks already dated now, as if it were a pre-BSG-nu-realism attempt at adding to a sleek design by adding unnecessary greeble to it.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

"Relics," "Trials and Tribble-ations," and "In a Mirror, Darkly" 1&2 were one-off indulgent TOS-crossover love letters to the fans that were released now 13-26 years ago during a period when Star Trek's ratings were steadily declining. Of course I nerdgasmed over them; I was in the target audience, but their use of original designs does not represent a commercially viable approach to be used today while making an entire series.

Something else to think about. Any updated depiction of TOS canonically established during any of those would now be badly dated too, i.e. dated enough so as to be unsuitable to use today without updating, especially one laid down during "Relics."

 

[Amasov]

But they didn't stop doing it. The reason I say the look was 'canonized' was because Trials And Tribbleations decided to make it "real" and even had the characters commenting on (and interacting with) the oddities, and In A Mirror Darkly equally although in their case they made the 1960s design elements seem sleek and futuristic to the characters themselves.

If it had stopped at Scotty's holodeck then it would have simply been cute and cheeky and dismissable as a fun little scene. But the other two instances involve actual time travel, and, therefore, made that look canon for that period.

People falsely blame ENT and DSC for not using a TOS aesthetic. When the blame is on TNG and particularly DS9 for making that aesthetic the actual, canon look of the period, instead of simply (simply!) running the line that it was all a visual retcon from TMP onwards when they had the time and resources to depict the starship more realistically.

You also have to consider that TNG was in no position to NOT make the TOS aesthetic canon, though. If instead, Scotty went back to the movie era Enterprise bridge, which production-wise would have been easier since that was still a standing set that got a lot of use on TNG, that scene would’ve carried far less emotional weight.

At the time, I’m sure it really meant something to see TOS and TNG connected like that even if it was just a holodeck simulation. But again, if TNG went back to the movie era in Relics I don’t know if that’s a reason to think that DS9 wouldn’t have gone to The Trouble with Tribbles.

I understand the idea that the TOS aesthetic was canonized, but I don't know if I fully agree that TNG is "to blame" for that. It was just TOS's look and part of what separated it from the other shows that later followed it.

 

[eschaton]

No, the simply showed it, this is not canon as looks are not canon. It was stupid as hell to show it looking like TOS, it should have never been done, so I for one and glad they stopped doing it.

I mean, where it was done it made sense. When we saw TOS-era ships, whether Relics, Trials and Tribbleations, A Mirror Darkly, and arguably that VOY episode I forget the name of - the whole purpose was basically to cash in on nostalgia. Of course if you're building an episode around nostalgia you want everything to be as reminiscent of TOS as possible.

The thing is, the writers forgot that although they're basically doing "only a show" that many viewers honestly think that Trek is some sort of historical documentary of the Trekverse, with no artistic license taken whatsoever.

Imagine if they decided to do a musical or something as one episode how many heads would explode.

 

[Terok Nor]

It would have sucked if TNG, DS9 and Enterprise retconned the visuals of TOS. I'm surprised any fan would have wanted that but each to their own. I'm happy with all the episodes that featured TOS era designs. It was so exciting seeing Relics and Tribbles the first time.

 

[Tuskin38]

It was fine when the other series did it because the entire series wasn't done in that aesthetic, just 1 or 2 episodes. Homages.

An entire TV series done that way would be laughed at by non-trek fans.

 

[Ronald Held]

This thread is a good reason to have series move forward in time and no prequels

 

[Tuskin38]

This thread is a good reason to have series move forward in time and no prequels

It really isn't.

 

[eschaton]

An entire TV series done that way would be laughed at by non-trek fans.

I'm not sure about that. I mean, steampunk has been hugely popular, and it's basically about applying a Victorian aesthetic to relatively advanced technology.

A properly done TOS revival show - with the old designs updated - could be seen as atompunk. Basically like the Fallout setting, except bright and shiny instead of crapsack.

 

[fireproof78]

This thread is a good reason to have series move forward in time and no prequels

Not really. It demonstrates the variety in opinions of fans, and what they think works and does not work.

I grew up with the TOS Aesthetic. More than any other look that will be "Star Trek" to me. But, I've been around enough people, talked with enough fans, to know that they love the characters of TOS but cannot get past the look.

 

[Amasov]

It really isn't.

Agreed. It just shows that Trek fans get far too nitpicky about visuals and try to use that as ammo to say that Discovery is in an alternate timeline simply because it doesn't LOOK like TOS and the shows that followed it.

I'm fairly convinced that if The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager -- all the 24th century shows -- had been done by an entirely different team, respectively, despite all being set within the same timeframe, they would look quite different from one another.

I would think that the creative forces behind Discovery want to establish their own look and feel rather than be tied down by what came before and be forced to use it. They already have to abide by continuity (not interested in your views about whether you think it adheres to continuity or not), and the rules that come with doing a series in the Star Trek universe, so the least they can do without having their hands tied is give their show its own look.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

...As for the Klingons, there was a very specific reason story-wise why the DSC Klingons look the way they do. And only the future of DSC will tell what they do with that to align it with their version of TOS or not. And if DSC is a reboot, then there's no reason at all why they need to make the Klingons start to look like oily-skinned humans...

Wait -- so you are saying the reason why people in 1979 should have been totally OK with changing the look of the Klingons onscreen was that they could assume that there would eventually be an onscreen explanation 26 years later in 2005 (or 17 years later, if we want to count DS9's "non-explanation" as an explanation)?

What if that 2005 onscreen explanation never happened? (and I am of the opinion that it should NOT have happened; it's a silly and unnecessary explanation that -- face it -- would be a source of great derision on this forum if DSC ever tried anything similar). Would that mean that the Star Trek fans who watched TMP in 1979 should retroactively be outraged?

What if the DSC showrunners tell you that they will never provide an in-universe explanation for the look of their Klingons vs. the look of other Trek Klingons, and that the reason they changed is simply because they could do something different (just like the reason the makers of TMP changed the Klingons)? Would that change your opinion?

 

[fireproof78]

What if the DSC showrunners tell you that they will never provide an in-universe explanation for the look of their Klingons vs. the look of other Trek Klingons, and that the reason they changed is simply because they could do something different (just like the reason the makers of TMP changed the Klingons)?

And more so, there was not explanation for 17 years, as you noted. Which means what? That Trek fans were left with baited breath at a possible explanation that might never have appeared. Which means that fandom either had to move on or stay stuck.

I'd rather move on.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

This thread is a good reason to have series move forward in time and no prequels

No, because if this had been set post-TUC / pre-TNG as was originally rumored, you'd have exactly the same problem. The aesthetics wouldn't match the earlier years, and it would look way more advanced than TNG.

Setting it post-Nemesis would be the safest bet, but even then I'm sure someone would get up in arms that the visuals don't match the established history (or ST: Online). Just wait until the Picard series for this battle.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

And more so, there was not explanation for 17 years, as you noted. Which means what? That Trek fans were left with baited breath at a possible explanation that might never have appeared. Which means that fandom either had to move on or stay stuck.

I'd rather move on.

I remember some of the fandom were not happy with them totally changing the look of the Klingons in TMP. Granted, that displeasure was difficult to gauge in 1979 without the social media we have today -- but IIRC my non-scientific and informal hindsight poll of my friends told me a few of them wondered "why change the Klingons?" Many at the time made their own explanations that these Klingons were a different race than TOS TV Klingons (which I think was also an unofficial off-the-cuff explanation given by Rodenberry in some interview).

Me on the other hand, I was fine with it either way. I could accept the potential in-universe idea that they were a different bumpy-headed race of Klingons, but since that explanation was not onscreen (thus unofficial) I was perfectly fine with thinking that considering it was a modern big-budget version of the TV show, the new-look Klingons were simply due to the availability of modern movie makeup -- no in-universe explanation required.

The I remember thinking "Oh...the Klingons look different. That's cool". As you said, I just moved on.

 

[Lance]

Discussion like these really remind me of Futurama's idea of humanity coming to treat Star Trek like a religion, and dividing over differences of interpretation

 

[Lord Garth]

Discussion like these really remind me of Futurama's idea of humanity coming to treat Star Trek like a religion, and dividing over differences of interpretation

 

[fireproof78]

No, because if this had been set post-TUC / pre-TNG as was originally rumored, you'd have exactly the same problem. The aesthetics wouldn't match the earlier years, and it would look way more advanced than TNG.

Setting it post-Nemesis would be the safest bet, but even then I'm sure someone would get up in arms that the visuals don't match the established history (or ST: Online). Just wait until the Picard series for this battle.

Yup. I can't wait for those arguments.

 

[F. King Daniel]

If only they'd just said it was an all-new take on Trek. Then there would be nothing to whinge about except the actual content of the show.

 

[GNDN18]

TOS looked the way it did because of 1) the state of the art, and 2) a television series budget. To take the second point first, the pilot looked better than the production episodes. Earlier episodes looked better than later episodes. The movies looked better than than the series. The first movie looked better than the last. Why? Money.

Now, the state of the art—especially effects—evolved such that even over a few years the opticals at the end of the series run were markedly improved from the pilot. Similarly, even the costumes seemed more finished and better fitting largely because of double knit. Cinematography also benefitted from advances in lenses.

So what? Well, I suppose a studio could launch a series with a $190,000 weekly budget, shot on film, without resorting to cgi or digital editing. That sort of an originalist approach to rustic filmmaking might be charming in its way, but hardly a lucrative endeavor.

Or that studio could do what GR did: put on the best story with the best the state of art could offer, funded with however much money could be brought to bear, in order to make more money. It’s GR’s first commandment, for all love: