Let's continue TOS

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

When you want to say something, stop and think: how might they have expressed the concept you mean back in the day?

You could:

* Watch/read other period-created sci-fi, but not exclusively. Sometimes sitcoms and (then) present-day dramas are useful, too. You could also crack open some dated textbooks/newspapers.
* Ask, on this board. We're very creative folks.
* Invent something completely new.
* Check out a dictionary for all the suffixes/prefixes, etc.
* When in doubt, describe something in terms of a well-documented historical/scientific example, or a completely made up one.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Let's just give Helen Noel a spin off.

Helen Noel: Space Shrink!

 

[Nerys Myk]

Sounds promising. Keep Margot Robbie the hell away from it.

 

[Pauln6]

Harley Quinn is a perky psychiatrist who also enjoys pushing random men into electrical grids. We don't want Margot to be typecast.

 

[plynch]

Yeah, sometimes it feels like jr. high here.

 

[Warped9]

When you want to say something, stop and think: how might they have expressed the concept you mean back in the day?

You could:

* Watch/read other period-created sci-fi, but not exclusively. Sometimes sitcoms and (then) present-day dramas are useful, too. You could also crack open some dated textbooks/newspapers.
* Ask, on this board. We're very creative folks.
* Invent something completely new.
* Check out a dictionary for all the suffixes/prefixes, etc.
* When in doubt, describe something in terms of a well-documented historical/scientific example, or a completely made up one.

Pretty much. It would be interesting to know how they handled their storytelling. Speaking strictly for myself I know that with some of their stories I’d have been suggesting they find another way of saying something, suggest alternatives or even suggest dropping something entirely.

To be fair guarding against contemporary slang or technical terminology would be a challenge. Despite us not thinking about it consciously, even though some of us have been around long enough to have lived with the changes, there is a difference between how people speak today and how people spoke fifty years ago. You can see it clearly by watching films and television of the period—language was somewhat more formal then than it is now. It can be a subtle thing, but it is noticeable.

An example of changes in terminology. In TOS they referred to supercomputers or an intelligent computer or a computer so sophisticated it attains consciousness. But nowhere in TOS or even TMP did they ever make reference to A.I. or “artificial intelligence” even though that is exactly the idea they were trying to put across.

No where in TOS did they ever say anything like “a Level One diagnostic.” or “change the phase frequency of our phasers.” And “nanittes” or “nanotechnology” were nowhere to be heard then.

 

[Dukhat]

No where in TOS did they ever say anything like “a Level One diagnostic.” or “change the phase frequency of our phasers.” And “nanittes” or “nanotechnology” were nowhere to be heard then.

This is why it annoys me when they use terms like 'Away Team' in SNW, or that Section 31 had commbadges 100 years before they used them in TNG. It's like the writers and producers simply can't switch off their TNG-itis and actually make something that has the genuine feel of a show that takes place ten years before TOS.

 

[plynch]

Well… they would have to want to do that to the extent you and I would like. And that isn’t something they strongly desire. I myself really like a consistent visual and sonic universe like SW has managed. You can’t always get what you want.

 

[Dukhat]

I never said I didn't like SNW. I just don't like when they go all anachronistic. How hard would it be to have an adviser saying things like, "They never used that term in TOS; they used 'landing party'"?

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

This is why it annoys me when they use terms like 'Away Team' in SNW

If they alternate between the terms, it's not so bad. We only saw a few TOS-era ships in TOS; as far apart as space is, different vernacular may catch on in some places earlier than others, or be used for various other reasons (the captain prefers one term to another, tradition, habit, etc)

or that Section 31 had commbadges 100 years before they used them in TNG.

I don't think it's that unrealistic that the top secret division develops/field-tests/gets access to the coolest toys before everyone else does.

 

[Dukhat]

But 100 years before? That’s just silly.

 

[Laura Cynthia Chambers]

Do they work the same as the other ones do, though? Are they as good? Or are they the combadge equivalent of the kind of phone this art portrays: (https://manmadeart.ca/products/1980s-brick-cellphone)

 

[Lord Garth]

How things got to where they are with SNW is long and convoluted, but Paramount wants SNW (and the other series) to be "the Prime Timeline!" while also still wanting Star Trek to maintain the illusion of being "our future!" The two don't fit together, but that's where the disconnect is. They don't want to let go of either. That's the reality of what the show is. And that disconnect is what's led to all these wonderful Internet arguments.

SNW is also a spin-off from DSC. Even if SNW isn't the same as TOS, SNW moving closer to TOS is seen as a compromise by most. If you want "TOS if were made in the 2020s", SNW is your show. If you want "a Gen X or Millennial's idea of what TOS should be," SNW is your show. If you think, "I wish Star Trek would go back to the episodic format!", SNW is your show.

SNW is a compromise series that's inoffensive and tries to reach as many of the people I just described above as possible. That's why it's considered by a lot of people to be the best series of New Trek, and also why I'm less of a fan of it.

I regard SNW as what it is: a safe and inoffensive Star Trek series. I much prefer "ride or die!" But I'm not going to beat SNW over the head about it not being enough like '60s Trek. Because I knew that was never going to happen.

 

[Warped9]

Introducing tech and terminology long before it was seen in earlier productions (TOS) might be rationalized in a somewhat realistic manner, but it’s a disconnect in fiction when you’re trying to depict an era supposedly more than a century prior.

It’s lazy and sloppy. You can still enjoy it for what it is, but it’s still lazy and sloppy.

And the powers-that-be can make all the claims they want in terms of continuity, but the evidence on the screen clearly says otherwise.

And asserting that “this is the way it really looks like” is insulting to a lot of long time fans.

A big slap in the face is previous films and series accepted Matt Jefferies’ beautiful TOS Enterprise as is in continuity, then along comes DSC and SNW asserting this squat dark gray fanboy thing is what the TOS Enterprise really looked like all along?

Fuck that.


It comes back to what I’ve said upthread: if they want to start with a clean sheet of paper than be honest about it. That simple admission clears away a lot of potential objections.

If the powers-that-be owned Superman would they be asserting that the Kirk Alyn, George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, Dean Cain, Brandon Routh, Tom Welling, Henry Cavill and Tyler Hoechlin versions were really all the same continuity? Or how about Adam West, Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer, George Clooney, Christian Bale, Ben Affleck and Robert Pattinson are really all the same Batman?

 

[Phoenix219]

Unquestionably. They could simply have avoided injecting anything blatantly contradictory with later series without having to do post TOS callouts.

Another issue, more a quibble, was injecting terminology that simply didn’t exist when TOS was made. For example: nanotech and other TNG era technobbable. It just sounded so out of place.

It came down to episodes coming across as very polished fanfic where the writer is trying to show how well versed they are in Trek lore and continuity.

100%

There is just a certain way of talking, a certain type of terminology, a certain *way* of thinking, that drips off of the TOS dialogue, that is such a product of the times, I doubt it could have been replicated even if someone tried.

I've often wondered what a true "P2" 1970s fan show should be like, with distinctly 70s dialogue, sound effects, musical tones, etc, and I don't think anyone could do it justice. It all would ultimately be hollow, like most later seasons of Stranger Things, and the entirety of the goldbergs for the 80s. And we are getting farther and farther from the 60s/70s for anyone to have an honest familiarity.

 

[fireproof78]

And asserting that “this is the way it really looks like” is insulting to a lot of long time fans.

Why? I don't get thus. I grew up with TOS and enjoy it all. A show coming along with a new sensibility around the same time period in fiction is about as insulting as someone else besides Sarah Brightman singing Phantom of the Opera.

 

[Warped9]

Why? I don't get thus. I grew up with TOS and enjoy it all. A show coming along with a new sensibility around the same time period in fiction is about as insulting as someone else besides Sarah Brightman singing Phantom of the Opera.

For the reasons I've stated above already. Don't tell me this is how it really looks like in the Prime continuity when for fifty years everyone accepted what the original looked like as the way it really looks like

If you want to change the way the original looks like then be honest and call it a reboot or reset or whatever. Then you can do whatever the hell you want and no one can say boo because a reboot is no longer in conflict with what had been previously established.

Hey, I love TMP, but I can honestly say I think they changed too much visually. But they probably thought TMP would ikely be a one time feature without followup and went in whole hog updating the look of Star Trek. But decades later, as much as I loathe JJtrek for numerous reasons, it did show the original uniform style and colour schemes could still work on the big screen.

 

[Lord Garth]

I feel bad for the person who started this thread.

SNW isn't a favorite of mine, but I'd be more concerned about TOS being replaced if it wasn't still available.

As far as John Q. Public is concerned, the only Star Trek they're familiar with is TOS (or rather their image of it), TNG (a.k.a. "the one with the bald guy"), and the Abrams Films.

When the un-initiated discover Star Trek, they'll find a huge glut of shows. TOS will be listed first or otherwise stand out because it's first, TNG will come up, and whatever current show Paramount is trying to push. Whatever new shows are out now will be lost in the shuffle over the span of time.

TOS will still be around no matter what.

 

[fireproof78]

For the reasons I've stated above already. Don't tell me this is how it really looks like in the Prime continuity when for fifty years everyone accepted what the original looked like as the way it really looks like

At this point this is not something I can get behind anymore. People get insulted by odd things. TOS is the 23rd century told from one point of view; SNW another. Neither is "how it is." They are interpretations, dramatically so. Otherwise, I'd be insulted by TMP and TWOK too.

SNW isn't a favorite of mine, but I'd be more concerned about TOS being replaced if it wasn't still available.

Indeed. I can't get insulted by this when the original is still readily available and I can watch it and go, "Oh, look, there's Shatner as Kirk."

Whatever happens in new shows TOS still exists.

 

[Warped9]

The OP asked about continuing TOS.

If you rredefining what TOS was then you're not continuing it--you're replacing it. No one said you cannot enjoy the replacement, but it's not a continuation of what came before.

It's a simple matter of definition. A given thing is what it is and is distinct. If you change it then it's no longer the same thing you had before.