Based on the stretch from early TNG to later DS9, rapid changes in uniforms is pretty common. I like the blue ones, but they may change during the run towards something closer to TOS’ pilot.
Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
And we've seen uniforms constantly shifting in the 24th century depending on which show you were watching. On the DS9, the TNG uniforms were standard on starships and Starfleet HQ, with the DS9 colored shoulder uniforms exclusive to the space station (and presumably other stations/outposts). The show was pretty consistent about that, until the First Contact uniforms became the new standard for all Starfleet posts.
Along comes VOY and suddenly it's the DS9 uniforms that are depicted as being the standard uniform on starships and HQ, prior to the First Contact uniform. If VOY had remained consistent to how DS9 depicted uniform usage, we'd see Voyager, Equinox, and HQ officers wearing TNG uniforms instead.
And then there's Generations, which just tosses them altogether.
That all said, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume there are other styles of uniform from what we've seen on DISCO. We may get a nice updated take on the turtleneck pilot uniforms seen in "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
Along comes VOY and suddenly it's the DS9 uniforms that are depicted as being the standard uniform on starships and HQ, prior to the First Contact uniform. If VOY had remained consistent to how DS9 depicted uniform usage, we'd see Voyager, Equinox, and HQ officers wearing TNG uniforms instead.
And then there's Generations, which just tosses them altogether.
That all said, it wouldn't be a stretch to assume there are other styles of uniform from what we've seen on DISCO. We may get a nice updated take on the turtleneck pilot uniforms seen in "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before".
I like all the uniforms so I’d love to see another at some point.
Exactly. There has been such a huge variety of uniform changes in Star Trek it is easy to imagine several uniforms being in service at the same time.
I always imagined how uncomfortable Sisko must have felt having to wear a red spandex uniform in S1 TNG era.
My own personal head-canon is that "The Companion" found Cochran in his crashed ship, but not in what one would call, perfect condition...
It/She then proceeded to "repair" him the best she could (with limited knowledge from the ships computers), and make him able to last a lot longer than he normally would have.
Thus the different physical characteristics and younger appearance.
The episode is called "METAMORPHOSIS".
I just figure the title describes his changes as well as Commissioner Nancy Hedford's.
That's being kind. It looked a great deal more like "hastily and cheaply staged."
Thank Goodness that Trump ISN'T a Star Trek fan...I guess Trump is right since he is the official leader of the US. We should follow him without question!
Who knew?!?
Or we would be well on our way to having "Sanctuary Districts"...
Instead of him just Tweet complaining about 'Sanctuary Cities'!!
I would agree. What can be tricky is that those two things can sometimes be hard to distinguish. For example, the DSC uniforms could be considered to be contradicting something we already know (since the show takes place between "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" [TOS], and both showed the same non-DSC turtle neck uniforms) or it could just be considered new information (e.g. the DSC novel's statement that there were two kinds of uniforms).
There's also the thing that some discrepancies aren't has damaging to the suspension of disbelief. For example, in "Little Green Men" (DS9), while stuck in 1947, Quark therorizes that he could give the Ferengi warp drive before any other major power. Other episodes seem to contradict the idea that the Vulcans and Klingons didn't have warp drive prior to 1947, but the discrepancy may not bother some people, since it can be chalked up to Quark being mistaken, like we all are sometimes.
It's a bit of a mileage may vary situation when a discrepancy that contradicts previously established information can be reasonably reconciled or if it's small enough to be just glossed over and not worried about and when they're big enough that they can't be ignored. Case in point all the discussion here.
So, basically I can't say that the emperor has no clothes if the emperor's PR tells us that in the first place?
Irregardless of what the Powers That Be chose to address or not address, DSC has continuity errors in the visuals department and those will not go away with the "just ignore it" mantra.
Truthfully, this show is not meant to literally line up visually with TOS. If that's how you're trying to watch the show, then you're simply watching it wrong. I've accepted that the show's intention is to update the look while treading the general lore of Trek. When the Enterprise showed up, I never once tried to come up with an in-universe explanation for why it looks different from what we saw in TOS. That would be a waste of time. It only looks different because this show has a different visual style from the others. That's all. I move on and try to watch the show on its own terms and hopefully enjoy it.
The thing is, ordinarily, when a property "updates its look" and is only consistent with the "general lore," that's what you call a reboot. 2005's Batman Begins isn't a prequel to 1989's Batman. If the filmmakers had tried to say it was, though, viewers would have been confused and frustrated, and quite reasonably so.
That's the kind of confusion and frustration people are expressing in this thread. DSC is right on the cusp of being something that's more different than it is similar. Being told repeatedly "trust us, it's in the prime timeline, it'll all fit together" really only serves to underscore that, on the surface, that doesn't appear to be the case.
That's the kind of confusion and frustration people are expressing in this thread. DSC is right on the cusp of being something that's more different than it is similar. Being told repeatedly "trust us, it's in the prime timeline, it'll all fit together" really only serves to underscore that, on the surface, that doesn't appear to be the case.
That analogy doesn't work because there's far more substantial differences between those two Batman films than just trivial surface details. DSC changing the surface details of Trek visuals is not the same as changing the narrative. There's criticisms the show deserves but having a different look doesn't factor in. To suggest otherwise is missing the point and shows an unwillingness to engage the show on its own terms.
If you insist surface details like the look of the uniforms is the same thing as narrative, then you might as well give up entirely on this show because it's never going to satisfy you.
If you insist surface details like the look of the uniforms is the same thing as narrative, then you might as well give up entirely on this show because it's never going to satisfy you.
From 2254 until 2273 we see no fewer than four different Starfleet duty uniform designs being used aboard starships and at starbases.
1. The pullover tunics with the ribbed or puffy(female) collars and necklines from the two TOS pilots.
2. The DSC jumpsuits.
3. The regular TOS pullover tunics with the black collars.
4. The TMP uniforms with the medical scanners along the waistline and rank epaulets on the shoulders.
Starfleet adopts the wraparound maroon jackets with ribnecked undershirts by 2278, and there are at least three major variants of this design between that year and 2349. Then we have all the TNG, DS9 and VOY uniforms that are used in Starfleet from 2350 until at least the final decades of the 24th century.
This list doesn't include the very first Federation Starfleet uniforms seen in Beyond dating from 2161-64 and which resembled the United Earth Starfleet jumpsuits seen on ENT. Nor does it the ones seen aboard the U.S.S. Kelvin in 2233, another design entirely where Starfleet employed a jumpsuit with a belt. We don't know when those were replaced, but we see the DSC uniforms already in use in the flashback sequences aboard the U.S.S. Shenzhou which were set in 2249.
In short, Starfleet is one spastic and indecisive organization when it comes to how its members dress.
My own personal head-canon is that "The Companion" found Cochran in his crashed ship, but not in what one would call, perfect condition...
It/She then proceeded to "repair" him the best she could (with limited knowledge from the ships computers), and make him able to last a lot longer than he normally would have.
Thus the different physical characteristics and younger appearance.
The episode is called "METAMORPHOSIS".
I just figure the title describes his changes as well as Commissioner Nancy Hedford's.
Good theory. It must have been close to Cochrane's original pre-WWIII and First Contact physical appearance, though, since both Kirk and McCoy remark that Cochrane looks familiar to them. They can't pin him down and don't know for certain until he reveals his full name and identity, but they know they've seen him somewhere. Starfleet and Earth history texts of the early-to-mid 23rd century were probably full of photographs of Cochrane both as he looked at the time of inventing warp drive and First Contact and how he appeared in his twenties when the Third World War happened.
Circular argument. If everyone concurred on the premise that the continuity issues with DSC only involve "trivial surface details," this thread wouldn't exist in the first place.
Almost like they were being outfitted by Hollywood costume designers, huh?
Moreover, I'm not even sure I buy the proposition that there are more substantial differences between those Batman films than between DSC and previous TOS-era Trek. Just to play devil's advocate here...
Batman and Batman Begins do indeed have obvious differences. The Batmobile looks different (just like DSC's starships). Gotham City looks different (just like DSC's glimpse of Paris). Key roles are played by different actors (just like Sarek on DSC). The costume is different (though not as much as the Starfleet uniforms).
But hey, all of that is "just visual," and some people here insist that sort of thing is inconsequential anyway! In narrative terms, especially "broad strokes," everything's the same, isn't it? Batman is Bruce Wayne, a secretive billionaire whose parents were gunned down in an alley outside a theater when he was a child. He lives in a mansion where he's attended by his British butler, Alfred. He fights crime in cooperation with Commissioner James Gordon of the Gotham City police. And so on. Heck, Begins even ends with a scene foreshadowing the Joker, who is the main villain in Batman! Sure, Batman didn't tell us about Bruce wandering the world for years or being trained by Ra's Al Ghul, or about his costumed debut protecting Gotham from a major terrorist attack by that same former mentor, but then it didn't really tell us anything about that part of his life, so how do we know it didn't happen?
So there you go. QED. The 2005 movie fits just fine as a prequel to the 1989 movie!
Yes, I know this conclusion is ridiculous. I'm just saying, it's not necessarily any more ridiculous than some of the arguments made here by defenders of the DSC producers' official party line.
Batman and Batman Begins do indeed have obvious differences. The Batmobile looks different (just like DSC's starships). Gotham City looks different (just like DSC's glimpse of Paris). Key roles are played by different actors (just like Sarek on DSC). The costume is different (though not as much as the Starfleet uniforms).
But hey, all of that is "just visual," and some people here insist that sort of thing is inconsequential anyway! In narrative terms, especially "broad strokes," everything's the same, isn't it? Batman is Bruce Wayne, a secretive billionaire whose parents were gunned down in an alley outside a theater when he was a child. He lives in a mansion where he's attended by his British butler, Alfred. He fights crime in cooperation with Commissioner James Gordon of the Gotham City police. And so on. Heck, Begins even ends with a scene foreshadowing the Joker, who is the main villain in Batman! Sure, Batman didn't tell us about Bruce wandering the world for years or being trained by Ra's Al Ghul, or about his costumed debut protecting Gotham from a major terrorist attack by that same former mentor, but then it didn't really tell us anything about that part of his life, so how do we know it didn't happen?
So there you go. QED. The 2005 movie fits just fine as a prequel to the 1989 movie!
Yes, I know this conclusion is ridiculous. I'm just saying, it's not necessarily any more ridiculous than some of the arguments made here by defenders of the DSC producers' official party line.
Cute, but that kind of falls apart when you address that Joe Chill killed Bruce Wayne's parents instead of Jack Napier. Plus, nobody in production ever claimed BEGINS to be a prequel set in the same universe as Burton's film.
Again, false equivalency.
Again, false equivalency.
Similar threads
