Well don't set it in an era which looks like the 60s. They could have at least set it In the 80s movie era or the TNG era.
Kelvin Timeline all but confirmed
- Thread starter captainkirk
- Start date
it is the story that matters, not the looks.
I keep reading this but don't buy it a bit. The look, the designs, the actors were every bit as important in selling what Star Trek was as the story.
For me, Star Trek is Star Trek. There aren't separate bits that can be carried forward without the rest. Which is why I treat the new show as a reboot. It can never be my 23rd century, and it isn't fair to expect that from it.
But TV is a visual medium. If they showed a dubbed episode of "Noel's house party" (the one with Mr. Bobby, yes (I'll let you folks Google that if you don't get it) but they'd dubbed a star trek storyline over it would you like it? I know it's an extreme example but still, I'm making a point.
They're still respecting the lore of the previous TV series though. They won't retcon Kirk, they won't retcon the Enterprise's missions. They will still happen regardless of what happens in Discovery.
The only thing changinh is the looks.
I never said that my hypothetical dubbed "Noel's house party" episode would do any of that either.
Fair enough, fair enough....
But honestly tell me that Mr. Bobby isn't a great sci fi villain.
See, I never thought TOS was "supposed" to look like that. Even as a kid I though that if somehow I could really be on the bridge of the Enterprise, everything would look and feel a little different. I was okay with it, but I always felt like I was watching an interpretation or dramatization if you will, of what it would "really" be if I could be there.
The reason was simple; TOS looked fake. Everything looked like the set it was. The instrument panels didn't look like they did anything. The sound effects already sounded silly and dated; computer I knew of already (even in the 80's) didn't make tape-spooling noises when calculating.
And as far as I was concerned, the movies confirmed it. As a kid, when I saw the movies I went "okay, so that's what it REALLY looks like". heck, even "Relics", "Trials and Tribble-Ations" and "In a mirror, Darkly" don't really convince me that we're really supposed to buy that futuristic starships looked that hokey.
And there's a reason DSC isn't going to look like that; because there is not a time in our future when that's what anything is going to look like. So why should modern art designs pretend it will?
The reason was simple; TOS looked fake. Everything looked like the set it was. The instrument panels didn't look like they did anything. The sound effects already sounded silly and dated; computer I knew of already (even in the 80's) didn't make tape-spooling noises when calculating.
And as far as I was concerned, the movies confirmed it. As a kid, when I saw the movies I went "okay, so that's what it REALLY looks like". heck, even "Relics", "Trials and Tribble-Ations" and "In a mirror, Darkly" don't really convince me that we're really supposed to buy that futuristic starships looked that hokey.
And there's a reason DSC isn't going to look like that; because there is not a time in our future when that's what anything is going to look like. So why should modern art designs pretend it will?
Discovery doesn't look any more different from TOS than a big budget period piece/historic film from the 2010s would look like a low-budget film of the same period from the 1960s.
People get trapped in the idea that, since Star Trek is fictional, it's not allowed to update its look in a similar fashion.
People get trapped in the idea that, since Star Trek is fictional, it's not allowed to update its look in a similar fashion.
No, its ten years before TOS, just like TMP was ten years after TOS.
It is? I didn't know that
The show's set in the 1960's????? How did I miss that?
Which is why its a good thing they've updated them.
IDK - looks like an evolution forward - based on the NX-01 design from te 22nd century of ENT. The HORROR that they decided to try and tie a prequel set in the 22nd century to a new Star Trek show set in the 23rd century of Trek -- Yep, they have no respect for the 'history' of the 'franchise'.
Ah, but don't you know ENT doesn't count? It's not "real" Star Trek, ya know.IDK - looks like an evolution forward - based on the NX-01 design from te 22nd century of ENT. The HORROR that they decided to try and tie a prequel set in the 22nd century to a new Star Trek show set in the 23rd century of Trek -- Yep, they have no respect for the 'history' of the 'franchise'.
Exactly. They're just taking a little artistic license to freshen up the look of the franchise for 21st century. Doesn't mean they're throwing all of TOS out of the window or whatever.
It's no big deal, nor does it have anything to do with "respect." It's just theater.
There was the article recently talking about how as the show goes on, the colors and look will be closer to TOS... Only time will tell though how well it fits into the Prime Universe
Because it's NOT a sixties show. The 23rd century doesn't equal "looks like it was filmed in 1960s." By that reasoning, a new TV show set around the same time as PERRY MASON should be filmed in black-and-white for consistency's sake.
It's a new show, set in the 23rd century, that's going to feature a 21st-century version of the 23rd century because STAR TREK is not supposed to be some sort of nostalgic period piece. And any discrepancies can be chalked up to artistic license and the willing suspension of disbelief required by any theatrical production.
It's not real history. It's make-believe, so we can just go with it.
Mad Men didn't have mobile phones small enough to fit in your shoe.
No, Dick Tracy did not have an Apple watch.
No, Dick Tracy did not have an Apple watch.
I'm watching a show just like that! It's called The Expanse. Completely clean slate with no Trek influence that I know of!
Similar threads
