The way I see it, both TOS and DSC are valid. One is not replacing or invalidating the other, rather we now have two different styles of that era of Trek at display. It's that simple.
Nature of the visual reboot
- Thread starter Groppler Zorn
- Start date
Could I be really awkward and suggest, in light of much of this discussion, that if DSC is a visual update that makes use of “historical” facts end events from the Trek universe every now and again, wouldn’t one of those facts be that someone (in-universe) designed the constitution class the way it looked in the 60s? Similarly wouldn’t it be a fact/event that the Klingons evolved the way they looked previously (again, in-universe)? So ultimately the notion of a visual reboot is in conflict with using pre-established facts and events in the Trek universe?
I’ve either figured out my issue with the “visboot” or I’m being waaaay too picky about this? Haha!
I’ve either figured out my issue with the “visboot” or I’m being waaaay too picky about this? Haha!
I've been a Trek fan since 1969, and I'm loving what they're doing with DSC. They're definitely catering to me.
But one isn't claiming to be in continuity with the other.
More alien mean "less like humans". That can't be a hard concept to grasp.
The increased alien-ness is about the visual and takes nothing from the idea of using Klingons ( or any other alien) as a stand in for aspects of humanity.
Again the alien-ness I'm talking about is the make up design.
Which takes nothing away from point.
Then why the need for it to be Prime at all? For me, the visuals were every bit as important as the stories in selling the universe. For me, you change the visuals and you've done a reboot.
Because that's were the bulk of Star Treks "history" lies.
The visuals tend to tie the show to the era it was produced. It's a smart move to update them.
Sorry, my reply was meant to emphasize "exact." I don't think many folks expect a modern production to look exactly like the '60s version, even among traditionalists. But I think tossing out the previous designs wholesale, as Discovery has done with the Klingon ships, goes too far. At least if they want to claim it's the same universe.
To me, it's not too different than if people tried to insist that the BBC's Sherlock is in the same continuity as the original Doyle stories. Same characters, after all, and many of the same events, just in a reimagined world. But enough is different that they can't be reconciled. And it's fine that they can't. If anything, Sherlock benefited from the feeling it was fresh and new and anything could happen. Discovery could stand more of that.
Last edited:
Still easiest to declare it not the PU but a close parallel one.
It's what ever the people who make it say it is. Viewers are free to call it what ever they want, but I think most don't actually care.
If we're speaking in short-hand, I'm going to say Prime.
"I wonder if we'll see Prime Lorca?" reads better than "I wonder if we'll see Narratively-Prime Lorca?" or "I wonder if we'll see Parallel-Prime Lorca?" Does he also do parallel parking?
"I wonder if we'll see Prime Lorca?" reads better than "I wonder if we'll see Narratively-Prime Lorca?" or "I wonder if we'll see Parallel-Prime Lorca?" Does he also do parallel parking?
I wonder if we'll see Universe that I don't think is Prime-Lorca?
As far as I'm concerned regarding naming conventions, I would suggest "Discoverse".
We have the prime universe (all of the "old" Trek). The Kelvin-verse (formerly known as "JJverse"). And now also the "Discoverse".
The Kelvin-verse is the one most different. While it IMO fits visually very nice with the "prime" universe (much better than DIS in fact), it has to most systemic differences - both in it's history (the destruction of Vulcan being a major event), the size of starhips, the technology (instantanious beaming to different planets, new ridiculous fast warp scale, reviving the dead), and even physics ("red matter", planets being visible in the sky from other planets, "time travel" not working as a single stream, but branches). In fact, this one is pretty much an entirely new universe (like the Marvel universe, or the Lost in Space one), only with a (very convincing!) Star Trek skin on it.
DIS on the other hand is - at least regarding mechanics - pretty close to the prime universe. The physics and technology work basically the same, and the history is also reasonably close to the "prime" one. The one were it drops the ball are the aesthetic choices - it evokes the look of another era (it looks and feels much more like a TNG era show), it even works like a TNG era show - and some weird prequel-problems in it's storytelling (they knew of the Mirror Universe? The Federation already having lost a war to the klingons makes a LOT of Kirk's decisions and presumptions weird). But mostly, the visuals are just off. It's all over the place.
That being said, the Discoverse works as being closely onnected to the prime universe. You just need to take a grain of salt -- it feels a bit "off" the same way the first few episodes of TOS have some weird things in them: James "R" Kirk, the Enterprise being part of the "United Earth Space Probe Agency" instead of Starfleet, the ship using "lithium" instead of dilithium crystals, Spock being a "Vulcanian". The Discoverse is the same level of "off". It's possible to handwave it away. But it's there. And it's weird. I'd say the Discoverse is at least 25% different than the prime.
We have the prime universe (all of the "old" Trek). The Kelvin-verse (formerly known as "JJverse"). And now also the "Discoverse".
The Kelvin-verse is the one most different. While it IMO fits visually very nice with the "prime" universe (much better than DIS in fact), it has to most systemic differences - both in it's history (the destruction of Vulcan being a major event), the size of starhips, the technology (instantanious beaming to different planets, new ridiculous fast warp scale, reviving the dead), and even physics ("red matter", planets being visible in the sky from other planets, "time travel" not working as a single stream, but branches). In fact, this one is pretty much an entirely new universe (like the Marvel universe, or the Lost in Space one), only with a (very convincing!) Star Trek skin on it.
DIS on the other hand is - at least regarding mechanics - pretty close to the prime universe. The physics and technology work basically the same, and the history is also reasonably close to the "prime" one. The one were it drops the ball are the aesthetic choices - it evokes the look of another era (it looks and feels much more like a TNG era show), it even works like a TNG era show - and some weird prequel-problems in it's storytelling (they knew of the Mirror Universe? The Federation already having lost a war to the klingons makes a LOT of Kirk's decisions and presumptions weird). But mostly, the visuals are just off. It's all over the place.
That being said, the Discoverse works as being closely onnected to the prime universe. You just need to take a grain of salt -- it feels a bit "off" the same way the first few episodes of TOS have some weird things in them: James "R" Kirk, the Enterprise being part of the "United Earth Space Probe Agency" instead of Starfleet, the ship using "lithium" instead of dilithium crystals, Spock being a "Vulcanian". The Discoverse is the same level of "off". It's possible to handwave it away. But it's there. And it's weird. I'd say the Discoverse is at least 25% different than the prime.
If we had to explain it in in-universe terms, I'd say it's the tattered remains of the Prime Universe after the Temporal War, after the Borg at First Contact, after Annorax's big delete gun deletes itself and resets 300 years of history, after 29th century timeships crash in the 1960's and god knows what else.
But really, I see it more as a seperate real-life production. A pseudo-prequel-reboot along the lines of Smallville or Gotham.
A pretty good analogy for a series of films that had more of a "fluid" continuity. Surely, Pierce Brosnan's Bond wasn't fighting SPECTRE in the 1960s, but you could say for his Bond it was likely during the 80s. That doesn't mean Connery's films are invalidated as a result, all Bonds are valid, you just gotta work with that comic book logic of timelessness where Bond is always set in the present but still has a history. The only reason Daniel Craig had a reboot with Casino Royale was because they wanted to explore his beginnings as a 00 without having to reset back to the 50s/60s. Makes me wonder if they'll actually continue on without Craig in the same style that they did in the first 20 films, a new Bond actor comes in but the MI6 cast is still the same.
Honestly, I LOVED that they kept Judi Dench through their first and only reboot - just to complicate things!
Also of course because she's an amazing actress and a perfect fit for the role...
It just might be a bit too fluid for Trek standard, and it seems weird for a franchise to "degrade" that once had such a strict and perfectly working strong continuity. But honestly, if they change DIS up a little - make the klingons and their starship look more traditional in future appereances - I would be perfectly willing to file DIS season 1's aesthetics under "early installment weirdness" and move on. DIS still has the potential to become a perfect "prime" universe fit.
Kirk wasn't only barely dead. There are not as many differences as they appear at first blush.
I'd count all the Bond films from Dr. No until A View to a Kill as one continuity where the actors were just recast. Roger Moore was older than Sean Connery and definitely looked old enough in 1985 to have been 007 in 1962.
Timothy Dalton and The Living Daylights in 1987 is the first break from that. After that it's more Soft Continuity. Even softer than it already was. Timothy Dalton looked too young to have been 007 in 1962. Same as with Pierce Brosnan. They were soft reboots where the previous stories still happened; they just happened later.
The first hard reboot was Casino Royale in 2006.
Timothy Dalton and The Living Daylights in 1987 is the first break from that. After that it's more Soft Continuity. Even softer than it already was. Timothy Dalton looked too young to have been 007 in 1962. Same as with Pierce Brosnan. They were soft reboots where the previous stories still happened; they just happened later.
The first hard reboot was Casino Royale in 2006.
Similar threads
