Enterprise --> Discovery --> Axanar -->Cage --> TOS
If Discovery was set ten year before *anything* TOS, would it make more sense?
- Thread starter Mark_Nguyen
- Start date
Where's that "Nope" picture?Enterprise --> Discovery --> Axanar -->Cage --> TOS
No. That's a persistent yet untrue rumor. Steven Moffat has repeatedly denied that the Daleks frequent appearances are a contractual obligation.
http://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/moffat-daleks-are-not-a-contractual-obligation-68881.htm
Daleks appear frequently in Doctor Who simply because they're the quintessential Who antagonists. Kinda like Trek's Klingons.
Hate it when documentaries and commentaries get things wrong.
Thank you for the clarification
Also, I hate the Daleks. There, I said it.
Well, I love their unmistakable 1960's design!
Hate it when documentaries and commentaries get things wrong.
Thank you for the clarification
He could be lying. Kinda like Trek producers when they say Discovery is set in the Prime timeline.
Last edited:
The design is the beets, courtesy of ray cusick. They aren't contractually stipulated, quite the opposite, historically speaking...and it's really only Moffat who brought in the reuse of older who designs with a lick of paint, he is more overt than RTD was.
I think you are both half right. There will be a squint and it's the same moment, the same way these Tenth Planet cyber men aren't quite the same. (I spent years waiting for Telosian cybermen.)
Well, I love their unmistakable 1960's design!
He could be lying. Kinda like Trek producers when they say Discovery is set in the Prime timeline.
Eh, I'll not force Terry Nation to twist in his grave.
Pardon my ignorance of British slang but what's "the beets?"
I didn't think the design itself was, just that I had heard that the Daleks themselves had to appear in one episode a season.
ANYWAY… If TPTB had come out and said that DSC takes place 10, 20, 30, 40 or even 50 years after ENT nobody would have batted an eyelid. But no, they listen the marketing department, and claim DSC is set 10 years before TOS, exactly when The Cage is set, and get everyone riled up!
Eh, I'll not force Terry Nation to twist in his grave.
Pardon my ignorance of British slang but what's "the beets?"
I didn't think the design itself was, just that I had heard that the Daleks themselves had to appear in one episode a season.
The Beeb. Auntie Beeb. The BBC. I got hit by spellcheck. Again.
Perhaps you're new
ENT was set in a time period centuries removed from what we'd seen before, and the nerdrage about that was intense. Now of course it's just part of the story, and we judge other things against it. In a few years, that's where Discovery will sit too.
WTF are you talking about? My point yet again, since you don't seem to be getting it, is that people were complaining that DSC does not look like TOS, so I chose the Dr. Who example about how two shows which exist in the same universe (Hartnell Who and Capaldi Who) have completely different production values but are still the same "universe," so the people who complain about DSC not being in the same "universe" as TOS have no merit.
And, yet again, I stand by what I wrote when I said "new Who will never, ever try to look like it did back then" (since that's the thing you seem to keep harping on), because there will never be a Capaldi episode that's going to look like a Hartnell episode.
Except that Dr. Who is a time-travel show. Each Hartnell or Troughton episode where they go to the future (especially the "future" of actual time that's already passed IRL such as 2010) is simply not going to look like the same future in a Capaldi episode. So the '60's Who's predictions of the "future" will not look like the 2017 predictions of the future.
Since you've taken my analogy out of context, you haven't proved anything. Maybe you're the one who should move on.
Last edited:
*Sigh* Wrong again.
But points for vain perseverance.
Perhaps you're new
ENT was set in a time period centuries removed from what we'd seen before, and the nerdrage about that was intense. Now of course it's just part of the story, and we judge other things against it. In a few years, that's where Discovery will sit too.
It's exactly because the nerdrage against ENT was so intense back in 2001 (and again with nuTrek in 2009) and it ultimately hurt that show I would have imagined TPTB had learned their lesson by now and avoid making the same mistake. And precisely because fans have accepted ENT they would have done themselves a favor and link the two shows without any bad connotations.
*Sigh* Wrong again.
But points for vain perseverance.
So in other words, you truly have no clue as to what I'm talking about. Fair enough, conversation over.
It's just a bad example, because NuWho recently has explicitly tried to look like earlier versions....Tardis sets....daleks...cybermen.....the sandman episode even channeled eighties future style a la the Two Doctors. Though I see the point you are trying to make.
The fact it was bland and terrible hurt that show, not the nerdrage. They tried to save it by doing a season of fanwank and 'how the Klingon got it's hump' stories and it didn't work.
Discovery just needs to not be terrible, and it'll be fine.
Exactly this. @Dukhat does have a fair point. But he used a bad example that 100% contradicted him...
From the little info we have so far it looks to me that DSC is full of fanwank. Harry Mudd, Sarek, "Number One", (Ancient?) Klingons, etc. And it's the kind of fanwank that we only see in fan productions. Yet another mistake of the past. Of course we don't have the full details yet.
I really hope DSC is not only not-terrible but excellent, so we won't live through another dozen years of TV Trek drought.
I'm glad they're updating the designs. They would look absurd on a modern television show meant to show our future. TOS was the future based on 60s art design, TNG was the future based on 80/90s art design and ENT was based on 00s art design. Things change and we should expect it. It's just a show, relax. It's not a historical document that needs to be held to strict standards and guidelines.
Doctor Who is really a bad example to compare it to since that show doesn't take itself seriously and embraces its cheesy early days. Star Trek isn't going to ever reference its cheesier moments like Spock's Brain. They barely remember details from episode to episode.
Doctor Who is really a bad example to compare it to since that show doesn't take itself seriously and embraces its cheesy early days. Star Trek isn't going to ever reference its cheesier moments like Spock's Brain. They barely remember details from episode to episode.
If Discovery looked like this:
It would be a fan film. Which is what the picture's from.
It would be a fan film. Which is what the picture's from.
