Exactly so.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
It's simple enough to say that one likes many things about Star Trek but isn't really invested in the fictional "reality" of the Franchise. I like TOS because it's a TV show I liked, and I liked everything about it in its context - sets, costumes, etc. If they did a "modernized" version of the show I'd decide whether or not I liked that one when I saw it, not based on how much like or unlike the original it was.
Isn't that what we're talking about? Props, costumes and sets are mutable.
I would tend to agree, except the fact they are peddling this as part of a continuing story.
Unless they are changing the story, I don't see the problem
Updating the sets, etc are not incompatible with telling a continuing story.
A pretend story that isn't bound by the laws of the real world. Many here, myself included, have already stated that they feel TOS to be a representation of the time period, rather than meant to show what everything would actually look like.
But really, any time something on Trek is incongruous with a modern perception of the future, I tend to sort of "white out" what doesn't fit. Starfleet officers behaving in grossly inappropriate ways toward women? I white it out. Until "Trials and Tribble-ations" I always mentally added brow ridges to TOS Klingons (especially while reading a TOS novel).
The craftsmanship and the visual do matter, but I don't use those things to define a trek universe (e.g., "that looks like the Prime Universe circa 2255", or "that looks like the Kelvin Universe circa 2260").
I understand why TOS looks the way it did -- and that is because it was made in 1966 -- and I also understand that something made in 2017 that will look very much unlike something made in 1966 but can still be part of the same universe and take place during the same general fictional time period.
So while I appreciate nice effects, even effects that would be considered "cutting edge" only when they were made back in 1966, I don't use those effects to define a fictional universe.
If they tell me DSC is 10 years before TOS, I'm fine with that even if the set dressings don't look like its 10 years before TOS.
I guess it depends on how invested you are in preserving the illusion that STAR TREK is one big consistent entity and not actually five different TV shows (and thirteen movies) made by divers hands over the course of fifty-plus years. I'm inclined to be more pragmatic about it and allow for some fudging just to keep up with the times. Willing suspension of disbelief and all that.
The same way we all pretended that we didn't notice that the Romulan Commander looked just like Spock's dad, or that the Star Trek universe seems to contain a lot of women who look just like Majel Barrett or Diana Muldaur or Suzy Plakson.
On some level, you have to acknowledge that you're watching a theatrical production, not a documentary, and allowing for a bit of artistic license.
So you won't be writing a novel about Saavik getting plastic surgery between STII and STIII?I guess it depends on how invested you are in preserving the illusion that STAR TREK is one big consistent entity and not actually five different TV shows (and thirteen movies) made by divers hands over the course of fifty-plus years. I'm inclined to be more pragmatic about it and allow for some fudging just to keep up with the times. Willing suspension of disbelief and all that.
The same way we all pretended that we didn't notice that the Romulan Commander looked just like Spock's dad, or that the Star Trek universe seems to contain a lot of women who look just like Majel Barrett or Diana Muldaur or Suzy Plakson.
On some level, you have to acknowledge that you're watching a theatrical production, not a documentary, and allowing for a bit of artistic license.
How could you not mention Jeffrey Combs? Tisk tisk.
There are women who look like Jeffrey Combs?
There are women who look like Jeffrey Combs?
Crap.
Probably. I think his DNA was what the Progenitors planted all over the galaxy. (Also Vaughn Armstrong's)There are women who look like Jeffrey Combs?
Honestly, if I cited every guest-star who played multiple roles on Trek, we'd be here all day.
The point being, we accept these sort of reminders that we're actually watching a staged TV drama without fearing for the integrity of the story, so why not also accept that they gave the sets and costumes a makeover, which is really all this amounts to?
The point being, we accept these sort of reminders that we're actually watching a staged TV drama without fearing for the integrity of the story, so why not also accept that they gave the sets and costumes a makeover, which is really all this amounts to?
Last edited:
There it is. When it gets down to brass tacks, Star Trek is not real.I guess it depends on how invested you are in preserving the illusion that STAR TREK is one big consistent entity and not actually five different TV shows (and thirteen movies) made by divers hands over the course of fifty-plus years. I'm inclined to be more pragmatic about it and allow for some fudging just to keep up with the times. Willing suspension of disbelief and all that.
The same way we all pretended that we didn't notice that the Romulan Commander looked just like Spock's dad, or that the Star Trek universe seems to contain a lot of women who look just like Majel Barrett or Diana Muldaur or Suzy Plakson.
On some level, you have to acknowledge that you're watching a theatrical production, not a documentary, and allowing for a bit of artistic license.
There was a whole series of books published in the 90's that are sadly out of print now called the "Nitpicker's Guides" that chronicled all the mistakes that got made while producing the series. One of them contained a test on whether or not you're eligible to join the "Nitpicker's Guild".
One of the questions was: "You're watching Star Trek and you notice a mistake. What do you do?"
The answers were:
- Fail to notice because you're invested in a Sports Illustrated magazine.
- Wonder how that slipped past the production crew.
- Write down the episode number, scene and error and send it to Phil Farrand (writer of the books).
- Lunge for the remote and turn off the TV before you can see any more errors. Sit huddled in a fetal position, rocking back and forth until you can convince yourself that you never saw anything that might suggest Star Trek isn't real. When your hands stop shaking, you make a mental not to never watch that scene again.
That would have been Vol. II, then.
Similar threads
