Should TOS episodes and TOS-R episodes be counted as different stories
- Thread starter Extrocomp
- Start date
Re: Should TOS episodes and TOS-R episodes be counted as different sto
Franchise is a horrible word to use.
It means the Star Trek shows and things are just a thing to be slapped on a lunchbox to get money.. a commodity..
This is avcourse true. But us people who are talking about and enjoying the stories shouldn't be using that term. Leave that to the fat cats..
Is there not a better word in English to use to talk about the collected series and books?
Franchise is a horrible word to use.
It means the Star Trek shows and things are just a thing to be slapped on a lunchbox to get money.. a commodity..
This is avcourse true. But us people who are talking about and enjoying the stories shouldn't be using that term. Leave that to the fat cats..
Is there not a better word in English to use to talk about the collected series and books?
Re: Should TOS episodes and TOS-R episodes be counted as different sto
This is just an unbelievably fascinating thread that I missed back in August before I became a member of TrekBBS.
Christoper, I understand and agree with everything you have posted here.
I do have one question that relates to this. Say for example, we hear Scotty say in "The Savage Curtain", that "Lincoln died 3 centuries ago" which would put the TOS in the 22nd century. However, in "Q2" we see that Kirk's 5 year mission ended in 2270. Also in "Trials and Tribble-ations" we have a canon date of 2268 for the events in "The Trouble with Tribbles". So according to what has been discussed in this thread do we go with the TOS actually taken place in the 23rd century and take what Scotty says in "The Savage Curtain" as inaccurate??
There are *some* discrepencies between TOS and TOS-R, where the Remastered teams have taken a liberty or two in replacing one type of spaceship with another or replaced details on a planet from what they were originally and so forth. To be sure, a pedant could argue that the fiddling at the edges by the remastered teams might change the occasional context here and there...But I wouldn't say the ''base episodes'' are any different from the un-remastered originals, therefore they shouldn't be regarded as 'seperate' to them.
Just trivial differences of detail. Like I said, these are stories we're being told, and every telling of a story has its own idiosyncrasies.
Mostly, TOS-R just replaces stock-footage reuses of things from earlier episodes, like replacing K-7 in "The Ultimate Computer" with a new station, or replacing the Rigel fortress in "Requiem for Methuselah" with a (gorgeous) new mansion for Flint. And I think that's closer to the original intent. The makers of those episodes didn't want Flint's mansion to look exactly like the Rigel fortress right down to the moons in the sky; they just didn't have the budget to do a new matte painting, so they approximated it as best they could with the available stock materials. To me, it's always been a given that Flint's mansion didn't really look that way, that what we were shown was just a prompt for our imaginations, a stand-in that we were supposed to look beyond. So the (gorgeous) TOS-R version is like finally seeing the real thing instead of the stand-in. So I don't consider that a change in the story at all, just a refinement in the way the story is presented.
This is just an unbelievably fascinating thread that I missed back in August before I became a member of TrekBBS.
Christoper, I understand and agree with everything you have posted here.
I do have one question that relates to this. Say for example, we hear Scotty say in "The Savage Curtain", that "Lincoln died 3 centuries ago" which would put the TOS in the 22nd century. However, in "Q2" we see that Kirk's 5 year mission ended in 2270. Also in "Trials and Tribble-ations" we have a canon date of 2268 for the events in "The Trouble with Tribbles". So according to what has been discussed in this thread do we go with the TOS actually taken place in the 23rd century and take what Scotty says in "The Savage Curtain" as inaccurate??
Re: Should TOS episodes and TOS-R episodes be counted as different sto
I think an important question is, what is the purpose of this list of episodes, movies, etc.?
If we are making a comparison with printed fiction such as books and comics, then a completist collector most certainly *does* keep track of different editions, printings, etc., even if they are essentially "the same story."
Maybe on this list of episodes, the original and remastered versions don't need to be listed completely separately, but there could at least be some sort of notation when there are different versions (including the extended version of TNG "Measure of a Man"); likewise with theatrical, extended, and directors' editions of films.
Kor
I think an important question is, what is the purpose of this list of episodes, movies, etc.?
If we are making a comparison with printed fiction such as books and comics, then a completist collector most certainly *does* keep track of different editions, printings, etc., even if they are essentially "the same story."
Maybe on this list of episodes, the original and remastered versions don't need to be listed completely separately, but there could at least be some sort of notation when there are different versions (including the extended version of TNG "Measure of a Man"); likewise with theatrical, extended, and directors' editions of films.
Kor
Re: Should TOS episodes and TOS-R episodes be counted as different sto
Yes, we should.
Yes, we should.
Re: Should TOS episodes and TOS-R episodes be counted as different sto
There were many contradictions in TOS, at some point you have to ignore/throw something out.
There were many contradictions in TOS, at some point you have to ignore/throw something out.
Re: Should TOS episodes and TOS-R episodes be counted as different sto
I don't see why not. Some people assume that every word spoken by any character must be absolutely factually accurate, but that's unrealistic. People make mistakes all the time. They misspeak, they misremember, they get things wrong. For instance, in reviewing this thread, I see that I was wrong when I said Roddenberry's original intent was to call the show Gulliver's Travels. That was actually something Herb Solow suggested and talked Roddenberry into one day, but the next day they both realized it was a bad idea (at least according to Solow's recollections in Inside Star Trek).
Scotty is not a historian, and he's not a computer. So any date estimate he gives offhand is not hard evidence of anything except what he believes to be the case at that moment, and that belief could easily be wrong.
Of course, some date references are harder to look past, like the dialogue in "The Squire of Gothos" suggesting that Trelane is looking 900 years back in time and seeing the 19th century (the age of Napoleon and Alexander Hamilton). But it comes down to the earlier point that these are stories being told. These aren't found-footage documentaries delivered to us from the universe where the Federation exists. Roddenberry's own take was that they were dramatized recreations of the Enterprise's "real" missions, and they weren't always an absolutely accurate representation of that underlying reality, due to budgetary compromises, censorship, or errors of detail.
Basically, the continuity of a series-fiction universe is usually going to be somewhat impressionistic -- you have to step back and look at the overall pattern, without focusing too closely on the individual details.
I don't see why not. Some people assume that every word spoken by any character must be absolutely factually accurate, but that's unrealistic. People make mistakes all the time. They misspeak, they misremember, they get things wrong. For instance, in reviewing this thread, I see that I was wrong when I said Roddenberry's original intent was to call the show Gulliver's Travels. That was actually something Herb Solow suggested and talked Roddenberry into one day, but the next day they both realized it was a bad idea (at least according to Solow's recollections in Inside Star Trek).
Scotty is not a historian, and he's not a computer. So any date estimate he gives offhand is not hard evidence of anything except what he believes to be the case at that moment, and that belief could easily be wrong.
Of course, some date references are harder to look past, like the dialogue in "The Squire of Gothos" suggesting that Trelane is looking 900 years back in time and seeing the 19th century (the age of Napoleon and Alexander Hamilton). But it comes down to the earlier point that these are stories being told. These aren't found-footage documentaries delivered to us from the universe where the Federation exists. Roddenberry's own take was that they were dramatized recreations of the Enterprise's "real" missions, and they weren't always an absolutely accurate representation of that underlying reality, due to budgetary compromises, censorship, or errors of detail.
Basically, the continuity of a series-fiction universe is usually going to be somewhat impressionistic -- you have to step back and look at the overall pattern, without focusing too closely on the individual details.
the directors cuts and releases aren't changing anything. The acting never changes. In some cases they include scenes that were cut from the original. Remember the famous one where scotty brings his dead nephew up? in the re do film, we see the accident that kills him. Not in the original theatrical cut.
And in the star wars redos, all that happened was they fixed post editing mistakes in transparency and added in somewhat useless scenery that had no impact on the movie.
And in the star wars redos, all that happened was they fixed post editing mistakes in transparency and added in somewhat useless scenery that had no impact on the movie.
I seem to also recall a certain scene in which they made a certain character shoot first, thereby destroying another character's cred as a badass.
Similar threads
