Poll Do you consider Discovery to truly be in the Prime Timeline at this point?
- Thread starter Annorax849
- Start date
BFD! Nobody except diehard fans on forums like this even understands what the concept "fanwank" means anyway, and even fewer actually care about it (or avoiding it). Just call it nostalgia. Nostalgia's not a bad thing. People like it.
Plus, literally everyone seeing the scene, fan or casual viewer, would have understood what they were seeing — that's the original Enterprise, just like they've seen it before. It's self-justifying: it looks that way because that's the way it's always looked. It's only when you make changes that you have to futz around trying to rationalize them, and get the "Three Bears" kind of responses.
You know, this notion has been batted around all season, and initially I really resisted it, because, well, I really like the TOS era. I just have a lot more attachment to the 23rd century than to the 24th.
But seeing how little (and how badly) the show has actually taken advantage of its chosen setting, and how it's not so much leveraged my affection for that setting as defied and undermined it... with hindsight, yeah, it might well have been better if they'd just left it alone, and gone and played in a different sandbox.
IMHO any use of an original-configuration Connie outside of TOS is nothing but fanwank. It was forgivable in DS9, being the 30th anniversary and all, and the episode itself being entirely self-indulgent (but fun) fanwank. It was borderline ridiculous in Enterprise 13 years ago and would be inexcusable now. It's an iconic design yes, but it's of its time - that time being over 50 years ago. It looks like it was designed on graph paper with a ruler and a set of compasses. The new version looks like it belongs in the universe of Star Trek: Discovery.
I've stated before I'd have preferred the Enterprise (or any constitution-class vessel) didn't make an appearance in DSC for this very reason, but seeing as they did it and we can't change that, I'm glad they gave it a (very modest and respectful) makeover. It's still very recognisably the Enterprise, more so than the Kelvin version (which I also like, by the way). The original would have stuck out like a sore thumb against DSC's 2017 SFX and design language, and I'd much prefer it looks believable in context with its surroundings than stay faithful to the 1960s design just to avoid offending the butthurt purists. I have zero issues with it.
I've stated before I'd have preferred the Enterprise (or any constitution-class vessel) didn't make an appearance in DSC for this very reason, but seeing as they did it and we can't change that, I'm glad they gave it a (very modest and respectful) makeover. It's still very recognisably the Enterprise, more so than the Kelvin version (which I also like, by the way). The original would have stuck out like a sore thumb against DSC's 2017 SFX and design language, and I'd much prefer it looks believable in context with its surroundings than stay faithful to the 1960s design just to avoid offending the butthurt purists. I have zero issues with it.
People like the new design too.
And, so what? Take a look at my immediately previous post. Nobody cares about what is or isn't "fanwank," or even about the word "fanwank," except (a small handful of) other fans.
Using the original would've worked on several levels. Aesthetically pleasing design. Consistent continuity. Appeal to nostalgia. Instant audience recognition. These kinds of things make people happy. They sell. They make the show popular. Why do you think they made the show a prequel in the first place?
Making changes served no purpose except to gratify the egos of DSC's creators about their "reimagining," justified by projecting an alleged demand for same onto hypothetical audiences. The redesign wasn't bad, true, but it certainly wasn't necessary.
Personally, IDGAF what "looks like it belongs in the universe of Star Trek: Discovery." Who does? That (sub)universe is all of 15 episodes old, and those episodes were of very uneven quality, and its "2017 FX and design language" were also uneven and more often than not ugly... so as shows go I can take it or leave it. If I'm going to try to take it, though, I care that DSC fits within the larger universe of Star Trek, as it's been established over 50+ years. In that universe, we already know what the Enterprise looks like.
Ok, let's use 'fan service' instead. It's the same thing. It's there purely to give existing fans an erection. Nothing else. The ship we got is still so recognisable that the casual viewer would have instantly known it was the Enterprise. Had they used the original version, the same casual viewer may even have laughed at its inclusion just because it would have looked so out of place with the rest of the show.
Yeah, you got me there. It took me ages to work out what ship I was looking at.
ENT also featured an original Connie, and guess what? That show killed the franchise, or at least put it into a good long coma.
If they were to feature a constitution-class ship in Discovery, it was necessary.
Well the show has to be at least internally consistent. This is what ships look like in DSC. Again, using a sixties design would have stuck out like a sore thumb. Would Christian Bale tearing around in a Lincoln Futura in the Dark Knight films not have looked jarring?
Sez you.
Just like we knew what Klingons looked like before TMP.
I do, because guess what show I was watching? I'd rather it looks like it belongs in that show, and not pull me out of it because they went with a jarring, archaic design.
What does a snazzy, high-tech version of the TOS Connie in a 21st century Trek series in two of the most well-received episodes of modern Star Trek have to do with the failure of the last series to get renewed for a fifth season? I know you don't like the original Connie design and onscreen appearance but really, that doesn't wash as a reason why we need the 1701 to look like other DSC starships.
Which, thankfully, it doesn't. The creators had the good sense to leave her mostly intact as we knew her before.
It was a response to lawman's comment that nostalgia "sells, makes the show popular", that's all.
And I like the original Connie design just fine, I just don't think it has any place in a 2017/18 TV show. And as I stated above, I like that the redesign was a) fairly light, b) respectful to the original, and c) still recognisably the Enterprise. Just a little sleeker and with a whole heck of a lot more detail.
I'd say they got three out of four. Maybe even 3.5.
If I ignore the visual aesthetics of this show, I do not see an issue with the timeline. However, it's the visual aesthetics that are tripping me up. For example, the D-7 seen in "Choose Your Pain" If they had done what they had done with the Connie, by upgrading the look to a modern sensibility, I would not be balking. Instead, they created a whole new design and are telling me this is D-7. Uh, no.
Hate to burst anybody's bubble, but as an active, Original Trek Fan when The Motion Picture came out, we were most definitely speculating about the "In Universe" explanation for the different looking Klingons.
Back 39 years ago, the most common thought was that they were just an offshoot of the Klingon Race (just like Humans don't all look the same) that came into power during TOS.
Especially since the ones shown during TOS, were consistently defeated by the Federation at every step.
This may have led to a rapid hostile takeover of the Klingon High Council by the Ridged Klingons.
(then the "Augment Virus" came along)
That's why even though DISCOVERY'S Klingons are kinda-sorta stupid looking, I have no problem with them being part of the Trek Universe.
Back 39 years ago, the most common thought was that they were just an offshoot of the Klingon Race (just like Humans don't all look the same) that came into power during TOS.
Especially since the ones shown during TOS, were consistently defeated by the Federation at every step.
This may have led to a rapid hostile takeover of the Klingon High Council by the Ridged Klingons.
(then the "Augment Virus" came along)
That's why even though DISCOVERY'S Klingons are kinda-sorta stupid looking, I have no problem with them being part of the Trek Universe.
Last edited:
Great explanation.Hate to burst anybody's bubble, but as an active, Original Trek Fan, when The Motion Picture came out, we were most definitely speculating about the "In Universe" explanation for the different looking Klingons.
Back 39 years ago, the most common thought was that they were just an offshoot of the Klingons Race that came into power during TOS.
(just like Humans don't all look the same).
That's why even though DISCOVERY'S Klingons are kinda-sorta stupid looking, I have no problem with them being part of the Trek Universe.
Psst. It’s actually D-17, but the speaker was interrupted so to us, it sounded like D-7. Fixed and done.
Sigh. Same difference. You can argue that using the Enterprise in the cliffhanger at all was "fan service," but not that using any particular depiction of it was more or less so. And again, so what? Audiences don't care. It's a prequel... a certain amount of fan service is to be be expected. It comes with the territory. It's a prequel precisely so that it can leverage the affections fans have for the TOS era of the show.
People keep saying this. I simply do not believe it. There is no reason to suppose that viewers would point and laugh at the same version of the Enterprise they have all seen countless times over decades, on screen, in photos, in models and toys and Christmas decorations and geegaws. It's simply what the ship looks like. It's what it has always looked like, even when digitally remastered just a decade ago. If someone finds it laughable, that's not someone who's likely to be watching Star Trek at all, in any version.
Moreover, I've seen defenders of DSC trying to have their cake and eat it too, combining this assertion with mutually incompatible rationales: after all, the reimagined version is actually really close to the original, posters say! 95% of "casual fans" wouldn't even notice the difference! And yet, somehow, if the actual original design were used, "casual fans" would notice and laugh and reject it. It's special pleading. It just doesn't add up.
Surely you're not positing cause-and-effect there? Those episodes were from the fourth season, which is almost universally recognized as ENT's best season, and were widely enjoyed at the time. Unfortunately the show had already dug its own grave during the previous three seasons, and ratings were too low to salvage.
You (and others) can keep saying this. What you can't do is offer any plausible rationale for why. At best you can offer speculative rationales based on the imagined demands of hypothetical "casual fans" who are supposedly too oblivious to notice differences in ship designs, yet somehow have strong preferences about them nonetheless.
Internal consistency is important, I agree. But it seems self-evident to me that what the show needs to be internally consistent with is the established look (and lore) of Star Trek. Unfortunately, the show has failed at that in numerous ways... or at least many viewers would argue so. Heck, that's what this whole thread is about. Bottom line, if there are inconsistencies between DSC and things that are familiar from established Trek history, then the problem lies with DSC, not with established Trek history.
And you know what's really "stuck out like a sore thumb" in this show? The goddamn Klingons. Their makeup, their ships, their costumes, their voices, everything about them. They bear no relationship whatsoever to any Klingons familiar from any previous version of Trek, nor are they credible or aesthetically pleasing in their own right. They yank viewers out of the story. Five months since DSC premiered, and people are still discussing what a misbegotten mess the new Klingons are. Compared to that, any version of the Enterprise is a drop in the bucket.
That DSC's visual designs and effects are uneven and often ugly? Yes, I say that. I've been saying it since the first episode. I'm hardly alone in saying it. There are entire other threads devoted to discussing it, completely independent of any considerations of continuity.
Batman Begins was clearly and unequivocally a reboot. It owed nothing to any cinematic version of Batman that had gone before. Were this the case for DSC, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I honestly don't know what to make of people who can look at the original U.S.S. Enterprise, and think the appropriate descriptor for it is "archaic" rather than "timeless classic."
And let me ask you this: what satisfaction did you personally get out of the changes made? After all, it is largely the same. The only real differences are a shorter neck, angled nacelle struts, tapered nacelles with extra greebles, a longer flight deck for the hangar bay, some additional layering on the hull, a ^$%&# bridge window, and the same garish blue lighting that's infested half the other shots in DSC. Which if any of those is a make-or-break alteration that makes the ship somehow less "archaic" for you?
If we didn't have the statements from the powers that be saying it's the Prime universe, would any of us even try to reconcile DSC with the rest? Going purely from what's shown, with new look Klingons, new Klingon ships called the Bird of Prey and D-7, loads of new lore, and a new-look USS Enterprise, would there be any question at all?
Nope.
Yup, because every Trek production to date has either been explicitly not prime due to time travel shenanigans, or prime by default. There's never been any suggestion otherwise. If TMP with its new Klingons, new enterprise, new uniforms etc can be prime without anyone explicitly saying so, then so can DSC.
I gave my rationale, you rejected it.
You're the one who brought casual fans into the conversation, talking about how nobody but the fans care about fanwank, and how nostalgia sells. I just want my 21st century Star Trek show to look like it was made in the 21st century.
Yes, let's spend our multi-million dollar budget recreating a 1960s aesthetic for our cutting edge streaming show. After all, nostalgia sells.
And yes, I agree that with what's been presented thus far the show could just as well have been set post-Nemesis and not a whole lot would have had to change, and I suspect that TPTB were pulling on the nostalgia strings in making that decision. I don't know if Bryan Fuller's vision would have made better use of the setting, but it's done now. I don't think the creators should feel beholden to maintaining the look of a show from over 50 years ago because of it though.
Other than the look of the Klingons though, did anything conflict as much as we see in DSC? TMP was a sequel, giving wiggle room with refits and years between it and the series. DSC is showing us conflicting versions of established things. Thanks to ENT's Klingon ships being the same as TMP/TNG/DS9 you can't say they're older versions of Klingon ships. They're indisputably swapout replacements, as is the new USS Enterprise.
I would (and still do) assume it's a reboot, with as much attempt on behalf of the showrunners and artists to reconcile their new look with the old as was made reconciling Christian Bale's Batman with Adam West's.
TMP was only 3 years between the events of TOS by some source. So, 3 years is enough time for Starfleet to adopt entirely new uniforms, new department coloring and logos, as well as strip the Enterprise down to it's keel and then build it back up?
But, ten years between DISCO and TOS isn't enough time? That's not "wiggle room?"
As for Klingons, why should the Klingons be limited to only certain types of ships? T'Kumva's movement was involving the leadership of 24 "Great Houses" so perhaps those ships were far more personalized by the houses at the time?
Also, equally ridiculous is the fact that Klingon ships haven't changed from ENT to DS9.
"Errand of Mercy."
Similar threads
