Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?

[MakeshiftPython]

Then you should probably give up already, because they're not going to give you the answers you're looking for. If Discovery lasts several seasons, I will be genuinely surprised if they ever try to "answer" why the Enterprise looks slightly different from TOS. I'm assuming they won't because they know a lot of fans like myself don't take visual information to a literal level.

 

[fireproof78]

Truth. The show has time to answer questions, and to fix other problems.

OTOH, the only reason it has that time (at least in my book) is because it's Star Trek, and there's an undeniable sentimental attachment there. If it were anything else, I would have already given up on it by now for myriad reasons having nothing to do with continuity.

As it it, I wish I had more confidence in the ability of these particular writers either to improve the show or to answer continuity questions. To the extent they do things that undermine that sentimental attachment, it really doesn't help.

You do you. Don't allow sentimental attachment to keep you engaged. If the show isn't for you, then it's not worth the torture. At least, in my opinion.

Star Trek isn't the reason why I'm watching Discovery though it is among the reasons. Maybe the top 5 of reasons.

 

[lawman]

It's hardly torture. There are worse things on TV, believe me.

OTOH, there are also far better things on TV. The best new SF TV show I've seen any time recently, hands down, is Counterpart from Starz. The writing, the acting, the worldbuilding, the pacing... it's all thoughtful and intricate and nuanced and brilliant and the very embodiment of "prestige TV." I watch it, and I love it, and I can't help wondering why Trek couldn't get that level of talent.

 

[fireproof78]

It's hardly torture. There are worse things on TV, believe me.

OTOH, there are also far better things on TV. The best new SF TV show I've seen any time recently, hands down, is Counterpart from Starz. The writing, the acting, the worldbuilding, the pacing... it's all thoughtful and intricate and nuanced and brilliant and the very embodiment of "prestige TV." I watch it, and I love it, and I can't help wondering why Trek couldn't get that level of talent.

Because Star Trek still struggles with a bit of a label around it. It's popular, but also very niche.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I sometimes feel like having to cater to some of the fans is holding Star Trek back. Maybe an actual reboot and dropping the continuity completely would be a great idea. Even the JJ films were tied down by it to some degree. Just start from scratch with the same basic idea explored differently. Kirk is the captain of a ship called the Enterprise with Spock and McCoy. Maybe Kirk is a lesbian woman, Spock is a social outcast from Vulcan due to his mixed heritage, and McCoy is a recovering addict. Earth is still visibly recovering from climate change and nuclear war, along with the scars from the Romulan War. The Klingons are a former member of the Federation who recently split off and are growing increasingly hostile. Starfleet captains are becoming forced to attack Klingon vessels captained by former allies and friends, Klingons are even still living on many Federation worlds due to immigration.

A Star Trek where we have absolutely no idea where it could go.

 

[fireproof78]

Maybe Kirk is a lesbian woman, Spock is a social outcast from Vulcan due to his mixed heritage, and McCoy is a recovering addict. Earth is still visibly recovering from climate change and nuclear war, along with the scars from the Romulan War. The Klingons are a former member of the Federation who recently split off and are growing increasingly hostile. Starfleet captains are becoming forced to attack Klingon vessels captained by former allies and friends, Klingons are even still living on many Federation worlds due to immigration.

The more I read about Star Trek, the more I lean this way. Again, moving the timeline up to build from recent history, and technological development, and extrapolating from there.

The ideas you list out are actually pretty interesting, and are both familiar in some respects, and different enough. Certainly could see McCoy as an addict (recovering or not) and Spock being an outsider, but fully embracing his Vulcan heritage.

I have no doubt that there will be a push back of "just set it in the future" and not worry about the details. But, there will still be the fear to step on continuity details like what Klingons look like, what Vulcans look like, etc.

I sometimes feel like having to cater to some of the fans is holding Star Trek back.

I feel the same way. Largely, because, it doesn't ever feel like it is willing to take risks.

 

[WebLurker]

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.

That's not how the franchise works (see "Trials and Tribble-lations" [DS9], "Flashback" [VOY], "In a Mirror Darkly, Parts I and II" [ENT], the remastered version of TOS).

It depends. You show up to the Imperial Swimsuit Charity Photoshoot expecting to see the Emperor in a tasteful one-piece speedo and a swimscap. Instead, she's frolicking around in a skimpy thong bikini that seems to be held in place entirely by waterproof tape and good intentions. You can shout all you want about the emperor being (basically) naked, but at the end of the day it wasn't the EMPEROR who misunderstood what was meant by the word "swimsuit."

In this analogy, I'm simply the one pointing out the posted rules by the poolside. Not my fault if the Powers That Be aren't following them. (Besides, the Powers That Be were the ones stating that DSC would follow canon in the first place, so I'm judging them by the rules they themselves set up.)

I don't consider visuals to be part of inter-series continuity. It's unlikely anyone currently working in television does either.

Visuals are factually a part of continuity, wether we take them into account or not (and Star Trek does take them into account, as can be seen across the franchise).[/QUOTE]

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Like it or not, DISCOVERY has now changed the rules. There are now two visual styles of the TOS era. That is the way things are now.

 

[cooleddie74]

I may not like some of the new visuals, but as long as the storytelling continuity more or less lines up with TOS and the wider franchise I can swallow some awful Klingon ships and unimpressive Starfleet bridges.

 

[Tuskin38]

How many people here changed their vote after (or during) the season?

 

[BillJ]

The best new SF TV show I've seen any time recently, hands down, is Counterpart from Starz. The writing, the acting, the worldbuilding, the pacing... it's all thoughtful and intricate and nuanced and brilliant and the very embodiment of "prestige TV." I watch it, and I love it, and I can't help wondering why Trek couldn't get that level of talent.

You should give Occupied on Netflix a try.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

We're talking about design choices here, not technical capabilities.

I'm talking about technical capabilities, and the fact that having greater capabilities gives you more choices. I can pretty much guarantee you that if Gene Rodenberry had access to the kind of resources the producers of Discovery currently have, he would not have made the same design choices.

And the technical execution of Discovery's design choices, whether you like them or not, is far superior to anything they could have achieved in 1965. But that kind of goes without saying.

So you say. Obviously it's debatable (for 120 pages). Sure, one can argue that the transporters, the comms, the MU tech, etc., were all better than what we saw a decade later, because we don't know they weren't and it's impossible to prove a negative, but how plausible is that, really?

It's no more or less plausible than anything else we've been asked to believe on Star Trek, even assuming that's the only possible explanation (and it isn't).

It's just incompatible enough to raise a lot of questions. As I said. And they're questions that the show apparently has little interest in answering.

Right. Because the answers the show IS interested in answering all involve Burnham/Sarek, the Spore Drive and the Klingon War. Those are the things the producers consider important.

As for Mudd, though, just answer me this: what happened to the original owners of the ship he stole from Deneb V? I would be very surprised if he didn't kill them.

The existence of one half-assed retcon does not excuse pulling an even more half-assed retcon later on.

Retcon is a retroactive CHANGE of continuity, and that's what happened in Enterprise. The same explanations that would reconcile Enterprise work just as well for Discovery.

And if you want more blatant contradictions, how about Lorca having physical relics of a Gorn and a Horta years before first contact with either one? Sure, those were just "Easter eggs" (not actual plot elements)

Bolded part.

It's emblematic of the fast-and-loose approach the show's creators have taken. They invite these kinds of questions rather than trying to avoid them.

I thought Star Trek fans LIKED to ask questions? Isn't the whole point of this show to engage the imagination and get us wondering "What if...?"

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I sometimes feel like having to cater to some of the fans is holding Star Trek back. Maybe an actual reboot and dropping the continuity completely would be a great idea. Even the JJ films were tied down by it to some degree. Just start from scratch with the same basic idea explored differently. Kirk is the captain of a ship called the Enterprise with Spock and McCoy. Maybe Kirk is a lesbian woman, Spock is a social outcast from Vulcan due to his mixed heritage, and McCoy is a recovering addict. Earth is still visibly recovering from climate change and nuclear war, along with the scars from the Romulan War. The Klingons are a former member of the Federation who recently split off and are growing increasingly hostile. Starfleet captains are becoming forced to attack Klingon vessels captained by former allies and friends, Klingons are even still living on many Federation worlds due to immigration.

A Star Trek where we have absolutely no idea where it could go.

I am again reminded that this is the main reason why Jetfreak7 no longer takes comments on his deviantart page, and it's the MAIN reason why I shut down the Starfleet Guide fan project. The level of unhinged toxicity from fans makes it very difficult to get any sort of decent feedback on anything you're working on.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In this analogy, I'm simply the one pointing out the posted rules by the poolside.

Cool, but the rules you're pointing out are the ones YOU made up. The Emperor has her own rules, and hers are probably more important than yours.

Visuals are factually a part of continuity

Only within the context of a single production. Not between sequels and prequels.

 

[BillJ]

I can pretty much guarantee you that if Gene Rodenberry had access to the kind of resources the producers of Discovery currently have, he would not have made the same design choices.

But he didn't. So that point is really a non-starter. He created Star Trek with what he had. And I seriously doubt that if he created Star Trek now would it remotely resemble what we got in the 60's.

The biggest thing is that Roddenberry himself would be a completely different individual, with completely different life experiences than the one that created the 1960's series.

 

[Gonzo]

But he didn't. So that point is really a non-starter. He created Star Trek with what he had. And I seriously doubt that if he created Star Trek now would it remotely resemble what we got in the 60's.

The biggest thing is that Roddenberry himself would be a completely different individual, with completely different life experiences than the one that created the 1960's series.

The Star Trek of the 60's was a classic product of its time as well as being limited by the technology and effects available, not forgetting the limited budget as well.

I am sure it looked amazing when it was shown, not surprising that it hasn't aged well really.

It wouldn't look anything like the old show if it was done now for obvious reasons like technology advancement and also the many political and social changes we have seen since the 60s.

The races, ships, civilisations and political landscape would all be pretty much unrecognisable.

The only reason Discovery looks and feels the way it does is because of what has gone before.

 

[BillJ]

The races, ships, civilisations and political landscape would all be pretty much unrecognisable.

Heck, if Roddenberry had modern tools to work with, we may well have ended up with a red-skinned Mr. Spock who ate energy through a plate in his stomach. We'd probably also have love instructors, three-breasted alien women and many other things that would've been a no-go in the 60's.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Heck, if Roddenberry had modern tools to work with, we may well have ended up with a red-skinned Mr. Spock who ate energy through a plate in his stomach. We'd probably also have love instructors, three-breasted alien women and many other things that would've been a no-go in the 60's.

Gene's Vision, a thing of beauty.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But he didn't. So that point is really a non-starter.

It's a point that TOS wasn't exactly what it was meant to be by the producers. It was exactly what they were able to accomplish and nothing more. Not all (or even MOST) of the creative choices of TOS were actually meant to constrain future productions, nor would Roddenberry have repeated them if he had a choice.

So why should we insist on someone else copying production choices that were themselves compromises?

The biggest thing is that Roddenberry himself would be a completely different individual, with completely different life experiences than the one that created the 1960's series.

So it's sort of a moot point. The visuals of TOS are hardly sacrosanct, so why would deviating from them matter that much?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Let's say if TOS had a larger budget and TVs were in high definition, it's a guarantee that the show would look very different. They would not settle for those very same cheap sets.

This is why fans bringing up episodes like "In a Mirror, Darkly" doesn't prove anything. It's a one-off episode that serves as a fun throwback, not an entire series. And even in that episode characters poke fun at the aesthetics because it obviously looked ridiculous in 2005, especially after having gotten used to the aesthetics of ENTERPRISE.