"Forbidden Planet" as TOS prequel?
- Thread starter TOS Purist
- Start date
I don't think there's that much similarity. Certainly given the technology of the era, many of the sound effects and "electronic tonalities" of FP could've been made using similar techniques to those used in creating ST's sound effects, so the results would have aspects in common. But that's as far as it goes.
"Forbidden Planet" was scored entirely with an early synthisizer, along with the sound effects. "Star Trek" had orchestral scores and the vast majority of the sound effects had real life sources.
I've fit it in while keeping ENT myself. Though I'm sure Dennis was refering to more than just chronology and continuity.I never really noticed any reusing of sound effects...but they DID "reuse" actors! Let's not forget that Warren Stevens, who played Doc Ostrow in "Forbidden Planet," also plays Rojan in "By Any Other Name."
In what ways do you think it doesn't fit with "Star Trek's" chronology? Discarding ENT first, of course.
Sorry, one doesn't get to do that and still talk respectably about "Trek continuity" or chronology or canon at all. One can't take contradictory or eccentric definitions of such terms seriously.
I've caught this act before, and it's way past tiresome.
Since when did you become a dictator on who can talk about Trek's chronology, and when? We're free to do what we want in a fictional world.
I'm just talking about TOS "prequels," since that's really the only one I consider canon. Of course, others are allowed to disagree...it's all fiction, anyway.
But if you don't go by ENT, "Forbidden Planet" fits in pretty well with TOS's timeline.
I'm just talking about TOS "prequels," since that's really the only one I consider canon. Of course, others are allowed to disagree...it's all fiction, anyway.
But if you don't go by ENT, "Forbidden Planet" fits in pretty well with TOS's timeline. 
I think the ubiqutous term "WHATEVER" is most applicable here.
Last edited:
But if you don't go by ENT, "Forbidden Planet" fits in pretty well with TOS's timeline.
It didn't look like Nerys Myk had a problem doing fitting both in.
Part of it stems from you thinking canon means "stuff I like." You cant really have a discussion with someone who doesn't speak the same language.Since when did you become a dictator on who can talk about Trek's chronology, and when? We're free to do what we want in a fictional world.
I'm just talking about TOS "prequels," since that's really the only one I consider canon. Of course, others are allowed to disagree...it's all fiction, anyway.
Exactly. "Chronology" is a word that means something. "Continuity" means something. "Canon" is a word that, however often misused in the context of fandoms, does not include as a recognized meaning "what I personally choose to accept."
Now then...
The movie Forbidden Planet gives a very specific chronology of human spaceflight which is not consistent with our real history of spaceflight - the real history that was acknowledged by Star Trek TOS in the episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" and has been alluded to many times in Trek since. FP's spaceflight chronology is a complete fantasy extrapolation with no point of identification with the actual American or Russian space programs:
When Uhura picks up the radio broadcast about the first "manned Moon launch" in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" it invalidates Forbidden Planet in terms of TOS's own chronology unless we pull something like "Oh, but we don't know if that Moon launch was successful - Trek might take place in an alternate reality where for some reason we don't successfully get to the Moon until the 2090s." Or we could nitpick the phrasing: "No woman has been to the Moon, and at our present rate of progress it's possible that none will until the end of this century and therefore the FP statement would be correct in a literal sense."
Well, yeah we could do that, but it justifies my statement that "Forbidden Planet doesn't quite fit with Star Trek unless you kind of cross your eyes."
Last edited:
trevanian
Rear Admiral
Darmok at Tanagra. When the Bailey fell.
Atook aluna Lana
It does Forbidden Planet a disservice to treat it as merely an adjunct of Star Trek. FP is its own unique creation, an inspiration for ST but still a very distinct work. There are enormous discrepancies. As stated, the chronology is completely different. The society is far more sexist than TOS was even at its worst. The technology is drastically different -- "hyperdrive" that requires transforming the crew into beams of energy to survive the transition, a more advanced science of robotics, etc. (I mean, seriously, Robbie went with them at the end -- of course their scientists would've reverse-engineered him and built more sentient robots.)
More fundamentally, though, it's the work of different creators, a work that came first and deserves to be respected on its own terms. It's disrespectful to the makers of the movie to pretend that what they created is just a subset of the creation of some TV guy who imitated what they did first.
More fundamentally, though, it's the work of different creators, a work that came first and deserves to be respected on its own terms. It's disrespectful to the makers of the movie to pretend that what they created is just a subset of the creation of some TV guy who imitated what they did first.
Forbidden Planet, Star Trek and Lost in Space all took place in the same universe. In that Universe, someone made the movie Forbidden Planet, and both Gene Roddenberry and Irwin Allen borrowed a lot from it an made their respective TV shows. See? I know it's a crazy, out there idea.
trevanian
Rear Admiral
You've got issues with context as well as content, pal.
I was very excited at the 90s remake news..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kielbryant/368348225/in/set-72057594137093529
sad that the damn thing fell through.. I am a true Forbidden Planet nut..
have the novel..comic books,the blueprints, the Polar Lights C-57D, folks, this movie had a huge effect on me..(saw it on KTVU Channel 2 when they ran it for the first time..and it totally blew me away at age 9)....
before the age of VCRs, I'd catch it just about once per year on TV, it was the first VHS tape I ever owned, and it was the first DVD I ever purchased.
As to where it fits in the Trek timeline..not really..it was only an inspiration for Star Trek..nothing more.
I
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kielbryant/368348225/in/set-72057594137093529
sad that the damn thing fell through.. I am a true Forbidden Planet nut..
have the novel..comic books,the blueprints, the Polar Lights C-57D, folks, this movie had a huge effect on me..(saw it on KTVU Channel 2 when they ran it for the first time..and it totally blew me away at age 9)....
before the age of VCRs, I'd catch it just about once per year on TV, it was the first VHS tape I ever owned, and it was the first DVD I ever purchased.
As to where it fits in the Trek timeline..not really..it was only an inspiration for Star Trek..nothing more.
I
Similar threads
