Season 3 on the Streaming Charts!

[Citiprime]

Except Trek's identity is not the aesthetic, but the attitude of exploration, struggle and human growth and development, optimism in the face of adversity.

If the aesthetics and continuity don't matter, why have any visual continuity at all? Why not just say we should treat this like The Simpsons or a James Bond film where what happens from story to story doesn't necessarily carryover and each is a story about "exploration, struggle and human growth and development, optimism in the face of adversity" if that's all that matters?

If it's all about that for any story at a given point, and not how the story fits within the larger continuity of Star Trek and how it connects to that history, then going The Simpsons route wouldn't be a big deal. But what some fans have argued is that it is distracting when the producers want it both ways. They want to use the history of Star Trek by filling a story with Easter Eggs, but then are like "why are you so bothered?" when those Easter Eggs are inserted into an episode with elements that don't fit together well with established continuity.

Neither did TMP. And I'm sorry it still doesn't.

So I shall reject TMP as Trek as well.

Then you would be no different than a lot of fans who dismissed TMP for 20 years, before reassessments started shifting people's minds about it, since it was considered one of the "bad" ones that was made before they figured out how to get things right with Wrath of Khan.

I would also argue there's something fundamentally different between TMP and Discovery. TMP was a continuation of TOS set years later. A central theme of the story is change and growth, with the characters (and Enterprise) having gone through changes (e.g., Kirk not able to let go of the Enterprise after becoming an Admiral, Spock trying and failing to let go of his emotions, etc.). Discovery, on the other hand, is a series inserted in-between specific, established continuity that introduced new elements that didn't fit with that continuity and basically said it is what it is.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If the aesthetics and continuity don't matter, why have any visual continuity at all?

It's not an either or situation. Keep what works. Jettison what doesn't, Keep it fresh. Simple.

 

[fireproof78]

If the aesthetics and continuity don't matter, why have any visual continuity at all?

Because preying on the familiar is how nostalgic properties stay alive.

That wasn't Trek's purpose in the beginning but has become it's purpose now.

Then you would be no different than a lot of fans who dismissed TMP for 20 years, before reassessments started shifting people's minds about it, since it was considered one of the "bad" ones that was made before they figured out how to get things right with Wrath of Khan.

I reject TWOK as well. It's nothing like TOS. And misses the whole point of Trek. And Meyer wasn't a Trek fan.

Discovery, on the other hand, is a series inserted in-between specific, established continuity that introduced new elements that didn't fit with that continuity and basically said it is what it is.

It actually fits quite well between ENT and TMP. TOS sits out oddly but has since TMP so that should come as no surprise to anyone.

At some point the value has been placed upon the set dressings and not the people. And that's what bothers me far more is that people matter so little. The argument made for TMP and TWOK is the people, the crew bring the audience along, stating that despite changes that are not explained (uniforms, sets, attitudes, etc.) the crew is still going to make the best effort out of it. Somewhere it was decided that aesthetics mean more than people do and that's why I struggle with this attitude. It's a people last one.

 

[HotRod]

So, let me get this straight. Your complaint is this space suit^ doesn't look like this?

Bee Keepers In Spaaaaace!

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'll admit, I thought it looked pretty good back in 1968.

 

[HotRod]

I'll admit, I thought it looked pretty good back in 1968.

Oh definitely, I've always thought TOS looked GREAT, for its day.

I kinda love the updated look from Disco and SNW.

 

[Citiprime]

But that looks nothing like Mass Effect...

Yeah, it looks nothing like Mass Effect.

So, let me get this straight. Your complaint is this space suit^ doesn't look like this?

No, my complaint its that the suit in Discovery, like a lot of the story elements in Discovery (e.g., Spore Drive, Klingon Cleave Ship, etc.) doesn't feel like they belong in the setting and sometimes are unnecessary. They feel like generic space action elements inserted into a Star Trek episode because someone said: "wouldn't be it be cool...." without any consideration for how it fits. It's an update on a story element that changes things to look "cool" where if you had just updated the established designs I think fans would have went nuts and loved it (e.g., redesigning the Enterpirise into the "Discoprise" instead of just doing a 4k update of the original Jefferies Enterprise design and using it).

Imagine if the current iteration of Doctor Who had said no one is going to accept Daleks with a plunger for an arm or a TARDIS that's a police box. We need to redesign it all for modern audiences. They didn't do that. They trusted their audience to accept what had come before and put those elements within a modern context.

If you want to do something different, if you want to "modernize" everything, set the show in the 25th or 26th century to begin with and you don't have to worry about people griping about continuity. But to bring it back to the argument in this thread, there's a lot of people who think that if some of the powers that be behind the current iterations of Star Trek would just trust the audience to accept the visual continuity that's already been established, they would adore it.

And that's part of the reason why Picard season 3 went over so well with a lot of Star Trek fans. They liked a show that embraced the elements that had come before. We didn't have to worry about a Discovery-fishhead Klingon version of Worf and wonder whether he always looked like that in TNG.

 

[fireproof78]

They liked a show that embraced the elements that had come before. We didn't have to worry about a Discovery-fishhead Klingon version of Worf and wonder whether he always looked like that in TNG.

Which covers over the multitude of sins of using elements of mystery boxes, Gary Stu characters and plot conveniences. Someday someone will edit Discovery to look just like 60s Trek and all the problems will magically disappear because this is a shallow art form.

 

[HotRod]

Yeah, it looks nothing like Mass Effect.

Yeah, it looks like a fairly generic bubble headed space suit. Which, I should point out, isn't even the standard spacesuit, but a specialized "thruster suit" or whatever they called it. Hell, it looks just as much like a suit from Prometheus, then it does from Mass Effect.

I should also point out that the image you picked was from Andromeda, a game released the same year as Discovery, meaning I'm sure Disco was far too long in development to take any kinda influence from Andromeda.

The Mass Effect trilogy, on the other hand, didn't really have anything that resembles that "Thruster suit" beyond the somewhat armored look.

 

[HotRod]

Getting to talk about Mass Effect for two days in a row.....

Guys, my birthday was weeks ago! You shouldn't have.

Who wants to see my Shepard statue!?

 

[Nerys Myk]

No, my complaint its that the suit in Discovery, like a lot of the story elements in Discovery (e.g., Spore Drive, Klingon Cleave Ship, etc.) doesn't feel like they belong in the setting and sometimes are unnecessary.

They feel fine. And are as necessary as any past element. Star Trek is always evolving. That's why there are no gooseneck viewers in TOS proper. It's why they changed the uniforms and the bridge. It's why TMP introduced new designs. It's why Klingons are turtleheads. It's why Romulans have ridges. It why they're half a dozen Andorian designs.

They feel like generic space action elements inserted into a Star Trek episode because someone said: "wouldn't be it be cool...." without any consideration for how it fits. It's an update on a story element that changes things to look "cool" where if you had just updated the established designs I think fans would have went nuts and loved it (e.g., redesigning the Enterpirise into the "Discoprise" instead of just doing a 4k update of the original Jefferies Enterprise design and using it).

Everything "inserted" into Star Trek is to look "cool." The ships, The props, the sets. Cool is just another word for interesting. Going back to the Klingons, everything about them changed in TMP. The only thing that remained from TOS was facial hair.
The "Discoprise" is clearly an update of the TOS ship. Just as the TMP version was. (Lamp shaded as it was).

Imagine if the current iteration of Doctor Who had said no one is going to accept Daleks with a plunger for an arm or a TARDIS that's a police box. We need to redesign it all for modern audiences. They didn't do that. They trusted their audience to accept what had come before and put those elements within a modern context.

They update the Daleks and the TARDIS all of the time. The size and exteriors of the TARDIS changes. So does the interior. Usually with every new Doctor and production team. It not being a Police box would be like changing the basic three cylinders and a disc design of the Enterprise. Neither has happened.

But to bring it back to the argument in this thread, there's a lot of people who think that if some of the powers that be behind the current iterations of Star Trek would just trust the audience to accept the visual continuity that's already been established, they would adore it.

It's an opinion I don't share. If any thing the powers that be are probably too restrained.

We didn't have to worry about a Discovery-fishhead Klingon version of Worf and wonder whether he always looked like that in TNG.

Why worry about that? It that's what keeps you up at night, can I get a ticket to that world?
The "fishhead" Klingons are just an extension of what was started in TMP. Making the Klingons look more alien. Is it a good design? Well, no. But some folks thought the same with TMP's update. Which might be why we never see that specific design again.

 

[cal888]

People are going to disagree, but personally I think If you say ANYTHING can be jammed into Star Trek continuity, that we should be at the creative whims of whatever a bunch of producers thinks are cool to "modernize" Star Trek for the moment, then you make the entire franchise generic sci-fi action and then it becomes so generic it loses its identity.

By this logic, you might as well keep rebooting the TOS era every ten years to correct for whatever changes in social mores and special effects occurred. If there's no past to invest in, why bother investing in the present?

ETA: what comes across to me is the idea that the 60s vision of the future is the only "correct" one and attempts to modernize it are wrong. And to me that is more antithetical to Trek's ideas than anything else put forward. Star Trek's idea was an optimism in the face of a constant nuclear threat, and that despite it (and another world war) humanity would persevere, humanity would survive and people would find mutual support and cooperation. Technology would be a helpful tool, not a divisive wall to help us accomplish it. And technology has moved forward in many different ways and it would be quite odd to basically say that our understanding of tech is not appropriate for Star Trek and it should remain confined to 60s era understanding and hypothesizing.

The 1960's version of the 2260's was there first. Just treat the TOS era as the "space 60's"... much the way TNG, DS9, and VGR did with the era. And much as the 1980's was different from the 1960's, the 2280's will be different to the 2260's, but in an organic evolutionary way. If you don't want to deal with the established time period... move forward!

If the aesthetics and continuity don't matter, why have any visual continuity at all? Why not just say we should treat this like The Simpsons or a James Bond film where what happens from story to story doesn't necessarily carryover and each is a story about "exploration, struggle and human growth and development, optimism in the face of adversity" if that's all that matters?

You might was well strap a Star Trek label to THE ORVILLE. It would still fit better than at least one NuTrek series.

If it's all about that for any story at a given point, and not how the story fits within the larger continuity of Star Trek and how it connects to that history, then going The Simpsons route wouldn't be a big deal. But what some fans have argued is that it is distracting when the producers want it both ways. They want to use the history of Star Trek by filling a story with Easter Eggs, but then are like "why are you so bothered?" when those Easter Eggs are inserted into an episode with elements that don't fit together well with established continuity.

This is why I actually dislike SNW season 1 more than DISCOVERY seasons 1 and 2. At least the later was so different that it's good qualities could be appreciated in isolation.

I would also argue there's something fundamentally different between TMP and Discovery. TMP was a continuation of TOS set years later. A central theme of the story is change and growth, with the characters (and Enterprise) having gone through changes (e.g., Kirk not able to let go of the Enterprise after becoming an Admiral, Spock trying and failing to let go of his emotions, etc.). Discovery, on the other hand, is a series inserted in-between specific, established continuity that introduced new elements that didn't fit with that continuity and basically said it is what it is.

TMP was made by Gene Roddenberry with the original cast. Aside from the Klingons, everything else makes sense in universe. And the Klingon loose end was eventually, and fairly easily, tied off.

The only way you tie off the discontinuity between DISCOVERY and TOS is wiping out the timeline with DISCOVERY (or going all out and saying TOS is dead and buried) or going multiverse.

No, my complaint its that the suit in Discovery, like a lot of the story elements in Discovery (e.g., Spore Drive, Klingon Cleave Ship, etc.) doesn't feel like they belong in the setting and sometimes are unnecessary. They feel like generic space action elements inserted into a Star Trek episode because someone said: "wouldn't be it be cool...." without any consideration for how it fits. It's an update on a story element that changes things to look "cool" where if you had just updated the established designs I think fans would have went nuts and loved it (e.g., redesigning the Enterpirise into the "Discoprise" instead of just doing a 4k update of the original Jefferies Enterprise design and using it).

It was also done in such a haphazard manor to meet the needs of that specific moment without regard to how the ripple effects would impact the wider franchise.

If you want to do something different, if you want to "modernize" everything, set the show in the 25th or 26th century to begin with and you don't have to worry about people griping about continuity. But to bring it back to the argument in this thread, there's a lot of people who think that if some of the powers that be behind the current iterations of Star Trek would just trust the audience to accept the visual continuity that's already been established, they would adore it.

PICARD season 1 mostly respected pre-existing continuity, albeit with the very annoying ST09 Romulan designs grafted on. But the tone was still all wrong. And it was full of generic SF add ons, like let's pull this from Mass Effect, add some FIREFLY, throw in some Nostromo from the original Alien, some GAME OF THRONES...

Which covers over the multitude of sins of using elements of mystery boxes, Gary Stu characters and plot conveniences. Someday someone will edit Discovery to look just like 60s Trek and all the problems will magically disappear because this is a shallow art form.

The visual continuity is only a small portion of the DISCOVERY problems. You'd probably be better off obtaining Bryan Fuller's original scripts and season outline, and running that through...

 

[HotRod]

They feel fine. And are as necessary as any past element. Star Trek is always evolving. That's why there are no gooseneck viewers in TOS proper. It's why they changed the uniforms and the bridge. It's why TMP introduced new designs. It's why Klingons are turtleheads. It's why Romulans have ridges. It why they're half a dozen Andorian designs.
Everything "inserted" into Star Trek is to look "cool." The ships, The props, the sets. Cool is just another word for interesting. Going back to the Klingons, everything about them changed in TMP. The only thing that remained from TOS was facial hair.
The "Discoprise" is clearly an update of the TOS ship. Just as the TMP version was. (Lamp shaded as it was).

They update the Daleks and the TARDIS all of the time. The size and exteriors of the TARDIS changes. So does the interior. Usually with every new Doctor and production team. It not being a Police box would be like changing the basic three cylinders and a disc design of the Enterprise. Neither has happened.

It's an opinion I don't share. If any thing the powers that be are probably too restrained.

Why worry about that? It that's what keeps you up at night, can I get a ticket to that world?
The "fishhead" Klingons are just an extension of what was started in TMP. Making the Klingons look more alien. Is it a good design? Well, no. But some folks thought the same with TMP's update. Which might be why we never see that specific design again.

This. All of this.

 

[Nerys Myk]

By this logic, you might as well keep rebooting the TOS era every ten years to correct for whatever changes in social mores and special effects occurred. If there's no past to invest in, why bother investing in the present?

It's a TV show. The "past" is what ever the current showrunners say it is. The way the show is presented (social mores and SFX) will reflect current realities.

 

[HotRod]

where if you had just updated the established designs I think fans would have went nuts

Just treat the TOS era as the "space 60's"...

The only way you tie off the discontinuity between DISCOVERY and TOS is wiping out the timeline with DISCOVERY (or going all out and saying TOS is dead and buried) or going multiverse.

Or, you can accept that it's a visual retcon and move on. It's really not that difficult a concept.

like let's pull this from Mass Effect, add some FIREFLY, throw in some Nostromo from the original Alien, some GAME OF THRONES...

So..... it's Star Trek? A show with more than a little Forbidden Planet, Day the Earth Stood Still, First Spaceship on Venus, etc. Plus, a little Wagon Train to the Stars, as Gene put it.

 

[fireproof78]

The 1960's version of the 2260's was there first. Just treat the TOS era as the "space 60's"... much the way TNG, DS9, and VGR did with the era. And much as the 1980's was different from the 1960's, the 2280's will be different to the 2260's, but in an organic evolutionary way. If you don't want to deal with the established time period... move forward!

Which has not what Trek has done. It has always tried both ways. TMP tried it too. So to me Discovery was right in line with previously established Trek to me.

It was also done in such a haphazard manor to meet the needs of that specific moment without regard to how the ripple effects would impact the wider franchise.

Not really.

The only way you tie off the discontinuity between DISCOVERY and TOS is wiping out the timeline with DISCOVERY (or going all out and saying TOS is dead and buried) or going multiverse

SHAW: No.

 

[Citiprime]

They feel fine. And are as necessary as any past element. Star Trek is always evolving.

If they had went over "fine," all of those aesthetic/story elements (e.g., depiction of the Klingons) of Discovery wouldn't have been bit-by-bit walked back.

Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that every Paramount+ series after Discovery has hewed closer and closer to older continuity, especially as their seasons have progressed.

That's not only true for Picard season 3, but also Strange New Worlds (old-school Klingons in the season 2 trailer), Lower Decks (which is essentially a TNG-era show but an animated comedy with a little bit of drama), and Prodigy (arguably a continuation of Voyager).

Everything "inserted" into Star Trek is to look "cool." The ships, The props, the sets. Cool is just another word for interesting. Going back to the Klingons, everything about them changed in TMP. The only thing that remained from TOS was facial hair.

I would argue inserting something because you think it's "cool" is not always a great idea. Yes, the Klingons changed from TOS. But, arguably, beyond their appearance they were given depth as characters and a society. In TOS, they're basically generic authoritarian bad guys. In almost every appearance beyond TOS, they're given more depth in service of story.

Now compare that to using the Gorn in Strange New Worlds season 1. Not only do you change their appearance, and create continuity issues with TOS's "Arena," how exactly are the Gorn expanded on in a way that gives them more depth? They're basically used as an Easter Egg name drop, and turned into generic, parasitic alien monsters, where ANY new species could have served the same purpose. But the producers wanted the Easter Egg connection to lure fans in and thought "wouldn't this be cool" as their primary purpose.

 

[Nerys Myk]

If they had went over "fine," all of those aesthetic/story elements (e.g., depiction of the Klingons) of Discovery wouldn't have been bit-by-bit walked back.

Never said they went over fine, just that they fit fine.

Also, I don't think it's a coincidence that every Paramount+ series after Discovery has hewed closer and closer to older continuity, especially as their seasons have progressed.

You are correct. And that might be attributed to the changes in management. Including Kurtzman, Goldsman, Paradise and other favorite whipping boys

That's not only true for Picard season 3, but also Strange New Worlds (old-school Klingons in the season 2 trailer), Lower Decks (which is essentially a TNG-era show but an animated comedy with a little bit of drama), and Prodigy (arguably a continuation of Voyager).

Also correct.

I would argue inserting something because you think it's "cool" is not always a great idea. Yes, the Klingons changed from TOS. But, arguably, beyond their appearance they were given depth as characters and a society. In TOS, they're basically generic authoritarian bad guys. In almost every appearance beyond TOS, they're given more depth in service of story.

But that's beside the point. They did a complete head to toe reboot of the Klingons. They just happened to luck into some writers who took that now blank slate and ran with it. Also, lucky for them, the fans bought it.

Now compare that to using the Gorn in Strange New Worlds season 1. Not only do you change their appearance, and create continuity issues with TOS's "Arena," how exactly are the Gorn expanded on in a way that gives them more depth? They're basically used as an Easter Egg name drop, and turned into generic, parasitic alien monsters, where ANY new species could have served the same purpose. But the producers wanted the Easter Egg connection to lure fans in and thought "wouldn't this be cool" as their primary purpose.

The Gorn were generic alien monsters of the week in "Arena". They were a blank slate. We now know more about their behaviors and reproductive cycles. No doubt more will come.

 

[fireproof78]

If they had went over "fine," all of those aesthetic/story elements (e.g., depiction of the Klingons) of Discovery wouldn't have been bit-by-bit walked back.

They feel fine, not went over fine. Reminder that this is the same fan base that rejected TNG because "no Trek can happen without Kirk and Spock." Rejection by the fan base should not be taken as somehow artistically invalid.

See also Enterprise and the upswell of support for it now. Or TMP even.

But that's beside the point. They did a complete head to toe reboot of the Klingons. They just happened to luck into some writers who took that now blank slate and ran with it. Also, lucky for them, the fans bought it.

Yup. Exactly as before; nothing new under the sun as the saying goes. The only difference being avenues by way of expressing distaste with current choices.

 

[Citiprime]

The Gorn were generic alien monsters of the week in "Arena".

No, they were not.

A key point in that episode is the possibility the Federation has (unintentionally) invaded Gorn space by settling on Cestus III, and the Gorn reaction, instead of being just that of "alien monsters," was of a people defending themselves.

KIRK [on viewscreen]: You butchered helpless human beings​

GORN [OC]: We destroyed invaders, as I shall destroy you!

MCCOY: Can that be true? Was Cestus III an intrusion on their space?​

SPOCK: It may well be possible, Doctor. We know very little about that section of the galaxy.​

MCCOY: Then we could be in the wrong.​

SPOCK: Perhaps. That is something best decided by diplomats.​

MCCOY: The Gorn simply might have been trying to protect themselves.​

SPOCK: Yes.​

And how Kirk proves humanity is more civilized than the Metrons believe...

KIRK: No. No, I won't kill you. Maybe you thought you were protecting yourself when you attacked the outpost. (He throws the dagger away, stands up and shouts to the sky)​

KIRK: No, I won't kill him! Do you hear? You'll have to get your entertainment someplace else! (The Gorn disappears, and a young blond boy in a white shift appears instead.)​

KIRK: You're a Metron?

METRON: Does my appearance surprise you, Captain?​