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

[lawman]

So, IOW, the effects in DTESS or TZ have aged just fine, because they still achieve what they're required to do, namely, deliver a powerful and entertaining story.

They don't necessarily achieve verisimilitude, no. OTOH, neither do the effects in DSC much of the time... indeed, often it's clear that they're not even trying to.

 

[fireproof78]

And, honestly, I don't expect the effects in any production to match perfectly from one production to another, regardless of the universe. The real world nature of production is too well known to me I guess and I'm more flexible for that part.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I prefer different productions to have individual looks. It's one of my problems with the Hobbit trilogy. They tried too hard to make them exactly like LotR and ruined them. I wish I could've seen del Toro's version, which seemed like it would have looked different visually. The more fairy tale-like aspect would have worked well with his general themes and design.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I submit that there's a certain inconsistency detectable here.

Sometimes it really seems like you (and a certain subset of other viewers) care a lot more about VFX than most people do (including me). Honestly, the quality of special effects is very seldom a significant consideration in my appreciation of a show or film. (Every once in a while something will really wow me... Interstellar springs to mind... but that's the exception, not the rule. And even the best effects won't do anything to vindicate a bad story.)

Other times, you say that visuals don't matter, they're just there to convey the narrative, and that's really what's important. Heck, I know you participated in this thread without ever really engaging its main point, which is that the FX in DSC, regardless of how much money may be lavished on them, really just aren't very good.

It's kinda hard to reconcile these viewpoints.

I don't see the contradiction here. It's just like when I told you that there are many things that don't literally register as significant from their side of the fourth wall. Stunt doubles, being one example; we can forgive a production for using a double that doesn't really look like the actor if you look closely enough, because we know the double is SUPPOSED to be the same character. Same for the zipper on the back of the Gorn; we're not supposed to pay attention to that, it's clearly a guy in a giant rubber suit but it's SUPPOSED to be an alien, so that's what it is. The zipper doesn't need a canon explanation, we're just supposed to run with it.

Theme music is another example of this, illustrative of the point. When a giant metallic waffle cone appears on the viewscreen and slowly, ponderously turns towards us, it's not entirely clear what we're looking at... but since we can clearly hear the danger music blaring in the background, we know it's probably something really dangerous and scary. Another good example of this is the theme music from "Best of Both Worlds," particularly the big menacing theme the first time they make visual contact and Picard says "We have Engaged... the Borg!" If that music had lyrics they would be "Ohhh we're fucked... it's the BOOOOOORG!" Sound effects, likewise, add a certain amount of gravitas to the action we see on screen; the screaming of phasers, the pulse of a torpedo launch. Bad sound design overall can take away from selling the narrative and take some of the impact out of what's being seen.

Now, I don't need theme music to be consistent across all series. I don't need phasers to always sound the same, or for photon torpedoes to always be orangish red with three-pronged flares or blueish white with ovoid flares. One production team might like the blue photon torpedoes and the next might prefer the red ones, and the next might prefer the weird TMP-style torpedoes with the spotlght sreamers flying all over the place. Another team might take a page from the expanse and just cold launch the torpedoes from little slots on the side of the engineering hull that drift slowly away from the ship until they light their engines like a squadron of starfuries or something.

The only thing I require of the VFX is that they not look cheap and/or tacky. If the effects are really impressive, really convey the action in a way that is exciting to watch, that's just icing on the cake. I have the same requirement for sound design, background music and sound effects. Theme music is good, it does ALOT to set the tone for the scene and the action you're seeing, and I'm a firm believer that when it comes to space opera shows like Star Trek, Babylon 5 and NuBSG, music and sound can make or break a show's presentation.

All of that being said:

you and viewers like you want to be impressed by the technical proficiency of FX, particularly in terms of being trendy and flashy and eye-popping.

"Technical proficiency" and "trendy and flashy and eye popping" are mutually exclusive. There's something to be said for subtlety, and not all composers understand that (I'm lookin at you, Murray Gold!).

On the other hand, Discovery has absolutely HORRIBLE sound design. I can't tell if it's just the limitations of the streaming platform, like maybe my device(s) are missing a couple of audio channel, but Disco's SFX use a lot of high-pitched, soft whistling sounds that seem totally in-congruent to most of what we see. While the musical score is light years ahead of Rick Berman's sonic wallpaper, I fully admit that Star Trek has never given us anything with quite so much gravitas as that completely over-the-top Doomsday Machine suite.

"Legacy fans"? What, have you coined a phrase for the express purpose of collectively dismissing fans who actually like original Star Trek?

Do you really expect me to go down the rabbit hole explaining to you what that term actually means and why it is not meant to be a dismissive term, or would you prefer to address what I actually wrote?

 

[lawman]

I don't see the contradiction here.

Of course you don't.

Theme music is another example of this, illustrative of the point. ... Now, I don't need theme music to be consistent across all series.

Of course not, because theme music is a non-diegetic element. It's literally the standard example of what it means for something to be non-diegetic.

You surely understand this, yet you've blurred this distinction again and again throughout this thread, and I honestly cannot fathom why.

Theme music can't be detected by the characters on screen. Neither can the status of makeup qua makeup (that is, as something other than the actual look of a character), or props qua props (e.g., transparencies in place of bridge monitors), or the different appearance of a stuntman/woman. These things cannot be noticed or observed by anyone within the story.

Sometimes the distinction is subtle. When the Discovery spins like a top on its horizontal axis upon activating the spore drive, this effect is (presumably) non-diegetic. On the other hand, when characters within the ship see things like drops of water floating as the drive activates, that is diegetic. Like the theme music, the spinning is a non-diegetic element meant to enhance the experience; others, like detectable makeup, are simply unavoidable and need to be ignored to avoid detracting from it.

The actual physical appearance of ships and uniforms and weapons and sets and the like, in Star Trek and almost every other film and TV show ever put to screen, is understood to be diegetic. Characters interact with them. They're part of their reality. Unlike with stageplays and their very severe physical constraints, the stuff we have to make allowances for is relatively minimal. Visual elements like these are meant to be as close to verisimilitude as possible, not something to ignore.

Consistency of diegetic elements is important for maintaining the willing suspension of disbelief that's essential for immersion in a fictional reality. So when you say that consistency between different productions doesn't matter, even though those productions purportedly share the same setting, you should hardly be surprised when viewers react to the assertion that the setting is the same with... disbelief. It makes perfectly reasonable sense that the effort at consistency should have the same scope as the fictional reality in question, whether that's limited to a single production or continues across many.

I don't need phasers to always sound the same...

Well then you're confused, because a sound effect (unlike theme music) is diegetic, i.e., it represents the actual sounds of things within the story. As such, phasers should sound consistent (at least, when they're they same kind of phasers within the same period setting).

...The only thing I require of the VFX is that they not look cheap and/or tacky.

And again you're confused, because the amount of money invested in the FX has fuck-all to do with whether the thing being depicted is diegetic or not. (And whether they look "tacky" is, of course, irreducibly subjective... just as much as whether they're "impressive" or "exciting.")

"Technical proficiency" and "trendy and flashy and eye popping" are mutually exclusive.

Then by all rights you really ought to despise the FX on DSC. For instance, they seem utterly incapable of depicting an outer space vista that's not chock-full of glowing nebulae and harsh blue light and long-zoom shots into ship windows.

Do you really expect me to go down the rabbit hole explaining to you what that term actually means and why it is not meant to be a dismissive term, or would you prefer to address what I actually wrote?

What you actually wrote was "Any version of the 23rd century Starfleet that didn't involve frankenbashing TOS-constitution parts together in various configurations was going to drive legacy fans completely bananas no matter what they looked like." If you don't see how that's dismissive, then you're the one who's not paying attention to what you write.

 

[Mirror Tuvix]

Does anyone like Discovery who isn't a CBS bot or a tween?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Theme music can't be detected by the characters on screen.

Neither can visual inconsistencies from one production to the next. If they don't notice it, then it's not part of the narrative.

That's why I keep using that example. If and when it becomes a major plot point that Burnham realizes one of her crew members is an imposter because "I hear mirror universe theme music... someone in here doesn't belong!" then a musical inconsistency becomes problematic. Likewise, if and when somebody says something like "Why does this ship have so many damn holograms? Nobody else in the fleet uses them! Is this ship from the future or something?" then the hologram inconsistency becomes detectable.

Don't hold your breath that any of these elements will actually become diegetic unless Discovery features Deadpool as a guest star. They remain irrelevant to the integrity of the narrative otherwise and are thus subject to change without explanation as often as the production team wants or needs to change them.

The actual physical appearance of ships and uniforms and weapons and sets and the like, in Star Trek and almost every other film and TV show ever put to screen, is understood to be diegetic.

Except for all the times they're not. Nobody in "Yesterday's Enterprise" made any sort of comment about the Klingons attacking them in ships that were basically oversized ginormous birds of prey, and nobody on DS9 ever commented on the Defiant seeming to change sizes in every single effects shot. ABSOLUTELY NOBODY commented on the fact that the Enterprise-D couldn't physically dock with DS9's upper pylon because the engineering hull is the wrong shape to make that connection, so the fact that the ship floats IN FRONT of the pylon without docking with it is a non-diegetic element. And we ignore it, because we're supposed to.

As even you concede above, some visuals are not meant to be noticeable by the characters. They're just stylizations that help to sell the narrative. Inconsistency in a non-diegetic element isn't continuity error unless it impacts the narrative somehow.

Well then you're confused, because sound effects (unlike theme music) is diegetic, i.e., it represents the actual sounds of things within the story.

Yes, and the fact that Klingon phasers in "Errand of Mercy" use the same "generic alien warbling sound" effect as half the other weapons in the galaxy isn't something Kirk and Spock actually notice. Neither of them would notice if the sound effect changed two episodes later either.

What you actually wrote was "Any version of the 23rd century Starfleet that didn't involve frankenbashing TOS-constitution parts together in various configurations was going to drive legacy fans completely bananas no matter what they looked like." If you don't see how that's dismissive

I didn't think so.

 

[Mirror Tuvix]

pedantic much

 

[fireproof78]

Does anyone like Discovery who isn't a CBS bot or a tween?

Yes.

**beep-beep** I am a bot and this response was done automatically.

 

[cooleddie74]

Does anyone like Discovery who isn't a CBS bot or a tween?

Norman, please coordinate!

 

[Mirror Tuvix]

I liked the track suits and the Tellarite guy. What was his name? Geoff?

 

[fireproof78]

Norman, please coordinate!

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Does anyone like Discovery who isn't a CBS bot or a tween?

pedantic much

You're off to an auspicious beginning. I'd ease off a bit on insulting the whole fanbase of the show and insulting people over arguments you aren't even participating in.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Does anyone like Discovery who isn't a CBS bot or a tween?

ER-ROR! ER-ROR! ER-ROR!
ER-ROOOOOOrrrrrr.....

 

[lawman]

Neither can visual inconsistencies from one production to the next. If they don't notice it, then it's not part of the narrative. ...if and when somebody says something like "Why does this ship have so many damn holograms? Nobody else in the fleet uses them! Is this ship from the future or something?" then the hologram inconsistency becomes detectable.

Still missing the point.

As I described, there will always be a few non-diegetic elements that we have to squint at and politely ignore. But deliberately multiplying the number of elements that the characters "don't notice" and the viewers are asked to pretend they don't is a whole other story. It's like using stuntpeople whose height, weight, and haircolor don't match the stars', or deliberately letting the boom mike drop into the frame... or using garishly unwieldy makeup for the aliens (oh, look, are those supposed to be Klingons?). Or changing the design of what is arguably the single most identifiable starship in the entire history of filmed SF. Things like this break the illusion. Trying to say they're a feature instead of a bug is just not convincing.

Except for all the times they're not. Nobody in "Yesterday's Enterprise" made any sort of comment about the Klingons attacking them in ships that were basically oversized ginormous birds of prey, and nobody on DS9 ever commented on the Defiant seeming to change sizes in every single effects shot. ABSOLUTELY NOBODY commented on the fact that the Enterprise-D couldn't physically dock with DS9's upper pylon...

And all of these things are understood as shortcomings. Glitches. Compromises. Unanticipated and unavoidable. (And even at that, those examples are all pretty minor.) We take them in stride and ignore them as best we can. That's still very different from a show deliberately injecting visual inconsistencies (and narrative ones, as we've already discussed), when they could be avoided. It's like adding extra zippers to the costumes just for the hell of it.

They remain irrelevant to the integrity of the narrative otherwise and are thus subject to change without explanation as often as the production team wants or needs to change them.

And if the production team indulges those "wants" for no damn good reason, "without explanation," then they don't understand how and why fiction works, and they're breaking the implicit contract with the viewers and undermining their own franchise.

If DSC were a show that could stand on its own, things would be different. But it can't. It's Star Trek. You can't simultaneously say "judge the show strictly on its own merits, and don't compare it to any other production" and "accept the show as part of the same narrative setting you already know and love, not a reboot, not a remake." The two statements are not compatible. That's the conflict motivating this entire thread.

 

[Mudd]

It would be nice if this show's narrative had any "integrity" for the visuals to be relevant to.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Most viewers didn't care that Klingons in TMP looked different. Most don't care that DISCO does from TOS.

 

[Awesome Possum]

It would be nice if this show's narrative had any "integrity" for the visuals to be relevant to.

We get it, you hate the show.

 

[fireproof78]

And if the production team indulges those "wants" for no damn good reason, "without explanation," then they don't understand how and why fiction works, and they're breaking the implicit contract with the viewers and undermining their own franchise.

They are? I'm sorry, but I'm a viewer I get it. I might be in the miniority, but genuinely, I don't require them to tell me it's "Prime" or what-have-you. I watch the show, and thus far it lines up with the larger events of TOS, even if the details are not explained. With respect to the franchises that I have loved over my lifetime, things are rarely explained when it comes to changes, at least not to my satisfaction.

So, rather than inisiting that it is all the production team's fault, and they are undermining my experience, I meet them half-way. The production team made changes in the visuals that haven't undermined the larger narrative of the world. Sorry, they have not.

Now, is it my preference? No, not really, though I can see it working within the narrative that has been established post-TOS, post ENT, post Kelvin. Building upon those elements that are featured and added to Star Trek over the past 20 years is just as important in the world building as acknowledging TOS.

We get it, you hate the show.

 

[Refuge]

Most don't care that DISCO does from TOS.

You may have missed a few threads here and on the greater Internet...