Mr. Bobby isn't a Cybermen, he's just a very odd creature from blobbotron 4. He was enslaved by the beeb in the 1990s.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
But in a sense, it is. It's the same technology, in universe, but now it had mysteriously regenerated a set that looks like it was made in 2016 instead of 1970. The Timelords invented touchscreen and modern graphics somehow, along the way, and integrated it into an existing rogue TARDIS...
At some point, thousands of years ago, the Timelords also invented a hammer on a chain for whacking and whamming the TARDIS console when it's being difficult, which the Doctor, or the TARDIS never bothered to install till after season 5.
And if that were Trek, there would be whole websites discussing that horrible canon violation.
First, where's the touchscreen in the TARDIS? Second, the TARDIS didn't make the hammer, he found it or something I expect, I have one just like it in the shed so it stands to reason that he does as well.
The TARDIS is a shed.
If a modern Doctor Who TV show existed there's no way they would keep the silly old designs, like those salt and pepper shakers with plungers for villains. They would look stupid in 2017!
Hahaha lol.
Wow...I tried to follow most of it, but there was some issues in my comprehension for a minute.
One, it's a strawman argument that individuals are acting like "The 90s never happened." No, we're talking about brand recognition and mass appeal. No one is saying it didn't happen-not one person.
Finally, CBS is clearly taking some of that advice regarding influences, because we see multiple influences on DIS, not just TOS. I get a much stronger ENT vibe from the overall production values than I do TOS, which, of course, is the controversy.
I just thought of a way to fix the uniforms! If they were to replace the gold/silver/bronze with the cage uniform colours it would fit in with the era pretty well as a sort of in between for the enterprise and tos uniforms. Even just that would put me more on board with the show.
As for the argument that they should have set the show further in the future if they wanted to update the visuals . . . well, that would be putting the cart before the horse. You don't let your costumes and sets determine the setting or the plot . . ..
"Well, we want updated costumes so I guess we need to set it after NEMESIS." No, that's not how it works.
"Well, we want updated costumes so I guess we need to set it after NEMESIS." No, that's not how it works.
They're not making a 1960s show. They're making a show set in the 23rd century. Other people have made the same point I'm about to make, but here's my version of it.
Imagine that you have the privilege of seeing two different productions of Hamlet performed 50 years apart. The play itself is identical in both cases, but the stage, actors, props, and costumes are different, despite the many similarities in these elements that follow from the play being the same in both cases. The producers of the later version could have been slavishly imitative of the sets, props, and costumes of the earlier version, but chances are, they weren't. Why? Lots of reasons, including the venue being different (let's assume it is) and evolving tastes because of what people at large have experienced in the interim. Perhaps the new version is more historically accurate because this is what the audience wants, or perhaps it less historically accurate because they prefer some other factor of entertainment to be emphasized instead; that sort of thing could go either way.
Getting back to Discovery, technology has advanced, not just in the real world but also in television production, in the 50 years since TOS aired. The professionals have come to the entirely reasonable conclusion that the audience will, by and large, not accept the screen look of TOS as the depiction of the 23rd century in a production made today.
The need to change the look for the benefit of the production is not an argument to make a different show that the professionals, again reasonably, judge would have even less of an audience. If it were, you could apply the same argument to Shakespeare and decide not to perform a play that people want to see today just because it won't look the way that that other (perhaps famous) production looked 50 years ago. It's really that goddamn fucking simple.
Performance of Shakespeare plays is an excellent analogy. There are outstanding performances of Shakespeare's plays that are set in anachronistic time periods. By far the finest Hamlet performance I've ever seen is Kenneth Branagh's 1996 film version, which is set in 19th century Denmark but doesn't change Shakespeare's 16th century dialogue. But it works. It works really, really well. There's also a great Richard III film starring Ian McKellen set in a fascist 1930's England. And a Patrick Stewart performance of Macbeth that's basically set in the Soviet Union. In fact, it seems that taking Shakespeare's plays and tossing them into some new, creative time and place is the norm rather than the exception.
Granted many Trekkies kneel at the throne of Canon, often to the exclusion of story, character, context, meaning, time, or mere goddamn entertainment. But as is probably clear...I'm not one of those people.
Have you seen the 2015 (Or '16 maybe) BBC version of 'A Midsummer Nights Dream'? It's another facist dictator one but it's certainly worth a watch.
No I haven't heard of that. I'll have to check that one out. I'm generally always interested in new Shakespeare performances.
I once saw a production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" that was set in a 1950s high school, complete with appropriate fifties pop music. "Why must I be a teenager in love?" That kind of thing.
It worked surprisingly well, and brought all new meaning to the line: "Let us ROCK the ground on which these sleepers lie!"
Letting creative people be creative is generally a better idea than obsessing over "canon" and what-not.
It worked surprisingly well, and brought all new meaning to the line: "Let us ROCK the ground on which these sleepers lie!"
Letting creative people be creative is generally a better idea than obsessing over "canon" and what-not.
Justin Bieber?
Similar threads
