No one is saying that.
There was one user here that hated it when people used a retroactive term invented for the TNG+ era and applied to the TOS, I.E. calling the nacelles domes on the Connie 'bussard collectors'.
Last edited:
How can these episodes (from TNG, DS9, and ENT) be canon any longer?
- Thread starter The Rock
- Start date
There was one user here that hated it when people used a retroactive term invented for the TNG+ era and applied to the TOS, I.E. calling the nacelles domes on the Connie 'bussard collectors'.
Yes, and even though they may well have existed back then, it’s just less distracting if the writer omits all references to them, or doesn’t have the engineer modify the main deflector to emit particles of the day. But again, it very much depends on who is watching and whether it’s more effort than it’s worth to be that faithful. Other franchises come with the expectation that existing characters and situations are reimagined all the time.
That is an excellent strawman there.
Pretty sure the Star Trek Encylopedia exists for that very purpose.
Star Trek was creating new adventures with new characters. The problem was no one was watching, ultimately culminating in the bomb of Nemesis and cancellation of Enterprise. Then Star Trek went and rebooted TOS with a new Kirk and Spock, and it became one of the highest grossing Star Trek films. So it's really not at all surprising that Star Trek these days is invested in revisiting the franchise's iconic characters.
Which has not been maintained or updated since the 50th anniversary.
Creating iconic characters is hard, but Picard became one of them and in 1994 appeared on the cover of TIME with Kirk. Now he’s getting his own spin-off.
Really, if you think about it, why settle for fewer iconic characters if we could have more, no matter how many productions fail to achieve that? Do we want Star Trek to be like Batman, or more like the entire DC universe, which also includes the original Watchmen?
Well, there you go, how many productions fail at making new characters iconic before you just toss in the towel and say "fuck it, go back to the ones everyone likes." How many iconic characters has pop culture even produced in the last decade? Most iconic characters are usually revivals of characters from decades past or adaptations of comic characters from decades ago. Off the top of my head, the only new characters who come close to iconic are the cast in the new Star Wars movies, and even they share the screen with the much more iconic original trilogy characters.
Exactly. We're not talking about a comic book franchise were if a character fails we can move on to the next one next week. We're not even in the age of tentpoles any more where studios were more willing to put money in to projects as they knew one big project would bring a year's worth of revenue.
Every project now is a financial risk and studios are less willing to take that risk.
Typically changes like that occur over the course of hundreds of years. My point was we're not spelling most things today differently than we were in 1964, so it was a bad metaphor to use when talking about production design.
I think it's fair to say they exist, it's just they tend to be seen on media more inclined to take risks.
All of these seem to fit the bill, but only one is a movie character:
https://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/1Bq_Kj_hQgYu27RthHKgfww.jpeg?w=780
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net...INJURED.png/revision/latest?cb=20180402210458
https://occ-0-990-987.1.nflxso.net/art/ee881/3a48bd824091de2c6530083fae327c542a8ee881.jpg
Last edited by a moderator:
Interdimensional travel is weird.
But TOS wasn’t “spelled” too differently as late as 2005 (or a few years later if you include TOS-R), and there is always the option of risking your production by not playing it safe and inventing new elements for 2396+.
Risk is part of the game...I think Captain Kirk said that once.
What's wrong with Star Trek being like Batman?
Says the guy who has been writing for both of them for most of my adult life . . .
I didn't read through every page here, but here's how my brain works, in case anyone finds it interesting. The Enterprise bridge on DISCO is exactly the same as the one in TOS (or WNMHGB or "The Cage," depending on your preference, at least). The exact same bridge. The only difference is that we're looking at it through different lenses. One was a lens made in the 1960s. The other, made in the 2010s. Because nothing happened on the DISCO one that, if you take the story and place it on a completely faithful recreation of the TOS bridge, couldn't have happened before.
One thing I thought of re: visual continuity I've always liked is this: "First Conctact" resulted in a lot of changes to the Prime timeline. For example, the TMP rec deck alcove showing the ring ship, post FC, shows the NX-01 instead. The ring ship was Archer's ship before Zefram and Lily saw first hand that the twin nacelle concept was the way to go. But that's just a bit of fun in my brain; I don't normally fret these things.
One thing I thought of re: visual continuity I've always liked is this: "First Conctact" resulted in a lot of changes to the Prime timeline. For example, the TMP rec deck alcove showing the ring ship, post FC, shows the NX-01 instead. The ring ship was Archer's ship before Zefram and Lily saw first hand that the twin nacelle concept was the way to go. But that's just a bit of fun in my brain; I don't normally fret these things.
What's wrong with Star Trek being like Batman?
Says the guy who has been writing for both of them for most of my adult life . . .
What’s wrong is that for every game-changing take on Batman such as The Dark Knight Returns or The Killing Joke, or any number of medium-sized ones that originate recurring characters (one of the latest being Harley Quinn on BTAS), there are hundreds of books which remain the spin of the day, weaving around well-known characters and events in varied art styles and layouts.
Imagine instead if every production team was required to create their own characters and situations in a shared DC universe, with only the bare minimum of crossovers. They wouldn’t have the safety net of a built-in audience, but rely merely on their own talents to make a new book swim. Alan Moore wanted that for Watchmen, but DC then came up with Before Watchmen. Gene Roddenberry and David Gerrold wanted that for TNG: what could be done to fix TOS from the ground up, without bothering with a mere refresh (though to be fair, the films would’ve stood in the way of that)? DS9 went even further, VGR stumbled and then the franchise started circling back towards TOS, from S4 of ENT to TOS-R to Abrams and now DSC, to be followed by… Picard. To me that’s shrinking the range of Star Trek after it had already shown what it can do. I’d rather see a hundred shows like VGR than a hundred riffing on the 2250s.
(Od course, there is still hope for DSC in S3, assuming it takes the latest retooling in interesting directions.)
Last edited:
I really can't get into that sort of comic book continuity where no one ages and events mutate and shift place from one decade to another. I don't understand what it is for, it rather detracts from the enjoyment than adds to it. I would prefer clean reboots over that sort of nonsense. If you don't want time to pass then don't drag events that happened decades ago into it.What's wrong with Star Trek being like Batman?
Says the guy who has been writing for both of them for most of my adult life . . .
The danger is what VGR became which was TNG 2.0, where things did not matter, and actually was off putting for me since things did not seem to matter.
Similar threads
