SNW truly respects TOS continuity!
- Thread starter C.E. Evans
- Start date
You must HATE all the exterior ship effects of the ORIGINAL STAR TREK (non-remastered) then. I don't know how you got though all the various discontinuity where in one scene the 1701 has dark red/non-spinning nacelle caps with an antenna sticking out of the front of them...and in one shot the warp pods have rocket exhaust nozzles in the end of them - and it another shot the rear of the nacelle has a ball shaped structure <-- ALL IN THE SAME EPISODE...you must have been screaming at your TV.
You must HATE all the exterior ship effects of the ORIGINAL STAR TREK (non-remastered) then. I don't know how you got though all the various discontinuity where in one scene the 1701 has dark red/non-spinning nacelle caps with an antenna sticking out of the front of them...and in one shot the warp pods have rocket exhaust nozzles in the end of them - and it another shot the rear of the nacelle has a ball shaped structure <-- ALL IN THE SAME EPISODE...you must have been screaming at your TV.
When I was a kid, I never noticed the spiked nacelle caps. I did notice the different endcaps at the rear of the nacelles, and the differences in the bridge domes and deflector dishes between the pilot model and the series model.
Me too. But I think some details were lost in black and white over the airwaves.
Just a little, until I realized it was just recycled FX shots to save money. The remastered fixed that, sort of. The TNG recycled shots aren't as bad, but just as noticable.You must HATE all the exterior ship effects of the ORIGINAL STAR TREK (non-remastered) then. I don't know how you got though all the various discontinuity where in one scene the 1701 has dark red/non-spinning nacelle caps with an antenna sticking out of the front of them...and in one shot the warp pods have rocket exhaust nozzles in the end of them - and it another shot the rear of the nacelle has a ball shaped structure <-- ALL IN THE SAME EPISODE...you must have been screaming at your TV.
You’re being disingenuous.
The Prime timeline has long been how the fandom refer to the main continuity from TOS-ENT. By stating Discovery takes place in the Prime timeline, those involved were saying it’s part of that same continuity. That’s what “it’s supposed to mean” (ie: exactly what it says).
I’m not offended if you call it a reboot. I’m not cross if you want to say it takes place in a different universe. Neither of those statements are true though. Authorial intent trumps fans I’m afraid.
You’re free to headcanon whatever you like, but it’s pretty silly to play semantic games with statements of clear intent in order to make yourself feel better about it all.
Last edited:
Does it? From my perspective, once something is out there it usually takes on a life of its own and that is usually driven by the fans. Roddenberry’s intent was that the Federation was a utopia, that got roundly rejected by fans and later creators.
Though I really don’t care either way, just give me a good story.
Unequivocally, yes.
Of course, once any artwork is in the public domain then that same public will interpret it as they choose (as in the above post where a poster has interpreted DSC/SNW as taking place in a different universe), but still the intent of the author is inexorably tied to the piece of art in question.
I can interpret Picasso’s Guernica as an illustration of LGBT struggles if I want but it doesn’t mean that’s what it was intended to be about. The intent of the author overrides the interpretation of any work.
How can it not? Surely it’s more than a little self-entitled to say “well I know the writer said x, but in my opinion he didn’t mean that and it’s actually y”?
I don’t think so, and obviously it is a MMV type of situation, but once a work is in the public space they tend to take on a life of their own based on how people see them.
We can point to DC Fontana’s authorial intent for Spock to have no siblings, which has been roundly ignored by both fandom and the IP owner for at least 32 years.
Does intent matter if people ignore that intent?
We aren’t talking about the same thing I think.
You’re talking about writers having ideas and then future writers playing within the same sandbox then expanding/reinterpreting/ignoring those ideas. In that sense I agree with you. The details evolve and change by their nature.
That’s not what’s under discussion though. TPTB said DSC (and other shows onwards including SNW) take place in the Prime continuity. There’s nothing to interpret there. It’s a clear statement and way bigger than an incidental a plot detail like Spock having an extra brother/sister.
The authors in question intend what they are writing to take place in the Prime timeline… so it does. It’s the height of fan self-entitlement to say otherwise.
If it was fifteen years ago with the same exact shows, they would be calling them a reboot, because that was what was selling at the time.
Best you don't watch Doctor Who. Or that show with James R. Kirk. He sucks.
SNW is the Trek show I've been waiting for since '69.
Last edited:
The day your first excised scene is taken out of a script because the producers don't feel it's necessary is the day you realize you're not the top, undisputed dog in the creative food chain. And more often than not you shouldn't be.
SNW has the TOS attitude in my books. It would be ridiculous to expect the show to have the design or character behaviors of a show made over half a century ago. Especially a show purportedly set in the future. So far as Roddenberry's intent or the other producers were concerned, it would be equally silly to stay with how they envisioned their wagon train to the stars back in the 60s. SNW feels like a 21st century's version of that. It works fine.
It is an unreasonable expectation. Fans have rarely been accused of being reasonable.
Agreed.
Of course. The idea that an audience member (or similar) can carry away their own interpretation of something is a tent pole in terms of why art is important at all.
In the case of the ‘Prime Timeline’ statement I just don’t see as there is interpretation to be had. TPTB said DSC etc. are in Prime so they are. With all the problems that brings.
I’m of the kind that wishes DSC was either a reboot or a post TNG show from the start but it’s not because that’s not what they say it is. We aren’t talking about unravelling allegory or finding nuance in metaphor. The Boss at the time said DSC is Prime and his successors have not seen fit to contradict him.
Yet.
Last edited:
I should clarify something, Strange New Worlds is a very solid, entertaining show. Regardless of what timeline one sees it as. But to me? It is new Star Trek, it is its own thing, it simply doesn't (from my perspective) remotely match up with what came before in anything but the broadest of strokes.
Comparing what came before with what they are now producing. Unless they plan on kicking TOS and various other parts of the franchise out of the "Prime" timeline.
Comparing what came before with what they are now producing. Unless they plan on kicking TOS and various other parts of the franchise out of the "Prime" timeline.
Similar threads
