They would never do that.
It's the 23rd Century with a new paint job. It's still the same timeline as TOS.
Last edited:
SNW truly respects TOS continuity!
- Thread starter C.E. Evans
- Start date
It's the 23rd Century with a new paint job. It's still the same timeline as TOS.
For you. For me it is a new show, as none of the people involved in "The Cage" or TOS are involved. Much like a 1966 Mustang isn't the same car as a 2022, even though they share a name plate and IP owner.
Do you mean comparing shows being made in 2022 with Season 1 of DSC, or comparing Season 1 of DSC with TOS-ENT?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say?
Comparing the current 23rd century output with what was done in 1966. I don't see TOS and Enterprise as being in the same timeline either. Again, it isn't about quality or being stuck in the 1960's it is about comparing a show written in 2021 (or 2017 or 2000) with a show written in 1966 that are supposed to be in the same general timeframe/timeline. We're different people now than we were in 1966, it is just fact, and it shows in a major way between TOS and SNW. The experiences of the writers are different than they were in 1966. Culturally we're different, our scientific knowledge has exploded compared to 1966, how we treat each other has changed, what we find acceptable has changed.
With TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT, there was at least a general chain of custody to hang on. That Roddenberry passed the torch to Berman, Piller, Taylor, Braga. That is all gone, so I simply treat what CBS is doing as a restart of the franchise.
And, it is just my opinion on these things, I don't expect other people to change their minds or think lesser of them for treating it all as one thing, just tossing in my two quatloos.
I considered doing this as it's own topic but figured I save hassle and stick it in here -
Where do you draw the line of TOS v SNW in terms of visual continuity?
For many on these boards, they cannot reconcile TOS (and Berman Trek) to Nu Trek, especially due to the significant change (some would say modernisation) to the visuals, including the changes made to the Ent.
For others, this is simply a case of the TMP Klingons all over again - it was always meant to look like this but budgets prevented it being so.
So my question (brought on mostly due to watching TOS (many episodes for the first time) recently) is where would you draw the line on visuals - for example, many have asked why they couldn't recreate the bridge in the same way it was done for Relics and for I a Mirror Darkly. Would you also, if being strongly wedded to visual continuity, also want to see the general set dressing to follow that of TOS? A return to the style of acting and the camera techniques?
Conversely - where do those who don't mind it draw the line? For me, I like the modernisation and, personally, don't mind if the nacelles are at a slightly different angle, or the deflector dish is a bit big. I recognise it as the Ent and it isn't sufficiently different to make me question anything. If they turn up with the Ent suddenly having a Sovereign saucer, Ambassador body, and Voy nacelles, then we are having a problem; if you tell me that we are now in the Gamma Quadrant rather than Alpha/Beta then we are having a problem, change TOS era command to be purple then it is obviously egregious.
As an aside - for those who remember the 60s first hand - I presume the sets and acting style of TOS was typical of the time? It has, to me, a theatre feel where (at times) buildings are simply the front facade and you will often find the actors that a scene isn't focused on being static, waiting for their line which is not really how people naturally move etc. This isn't picking holes, just something that I'd be interested to hear more on.
Where do you draw the line of TOS v SNW in terms of visual continuity?
For many on these boards, they cannot reconcile TOS (and Berman Trek) to Nu Trek, especially due to the significant change (some would say modernisation) to the visuals, including the changes made to the Ent.
For others, this is simply a case of the TMP Klingons all over again - it was always meant to look like this but budgets prevented it being so.
So my question (brought on mostly due to watching TOS (many episodes for the first time) recently) is where would you draw the line on visuals - for example, many have asked why they couldn't recreate the bridge in the same way it was done for Relics and for I a Mirror Darkly. Would you also, if being strongly wedded to visual continuity, also want to see the general set dressing to follow that of TOS? A return to the style of acting and the camera techniques?
Conversely - where do those who don't mind it draw the line? For me, I like the modernisation and, personally, don't mind if the nacelles are at a slightly different angle, or the deflector dish is a bit big. I recognise it as the Ent and it isn't sufficiently different to make me question anything. If they turn up with the Ent suddenly having a Sovereign saucer, Ambassador body, and Voy nacelles, then we are having a problem; if you tell me that we are now in the Gamma Quadrant rather than Alpha/Beta then we are having a problem, change TOS era command to be purple then it is obviously egregious.
As an aside - for those who remember the 60s first hand - I presume the sets and acting style of TOS was typical of the time? It has, to me, a theatre feel where (at times) buildings are simply the front facade and you will often find the actors that a scene isn't focused on being static, waiting for their line which is not really how people naturally move etc. This isn't picking holes, just something that I'd be interested to hear more on.
I suppose that I'm lucky in that the aesthetics of TOS read to me like theatre and I can watch them as such. The same way as when I watch I Claudius then I know full well that I'm watching British actors in a BBC studio and am about as far from Rome as it's possible to be.
It's having a Doctor Who background that helps I tell ya. Much of the Classic show looks so unbelievably cheap that it's impossible to even enjoy it at times without overlooking an awful lot aesthetically. I should add I say that as someone who was raised on the Classic show and still love it. However taking the visuals literally in the case of Doctor Who requires one to accept (to give one example) flat cardboard background Dalek stand-ins and a whole wall of the TARDIS that's a huge cardboard blowup.
In other words, somewhere between the creators intent and what actually appears onscreen is my own mental version wherein the blanks are filled in. I've found unconsciously that I've done the same thing with SNW.
I also believe, absolutely believe, that if by some magic Roddenberry had had a choice in 1966 between the look of TOS and the look of SNW, he would have jumped at the latter. SNW looks to me like what TOS would have looked like if those involved at the time had the money, technology and capability to make it so.
But that's a whole other thought experiment.
I'm in the "I don't care about continuity if the story is good" camp. Being a fan of the comics, I'm used to lots of visual difference. Though a multiverse doesn't phase me the way it seems to phase some here. I still love the stories of Kirk commanding the Excelsior and Spock commanding the Science Vessel Surak in the DC Comics run between Star Trek III and IV. Or the novel Federation which is simply a different version of events depicted in Star Trek VIII.
Sure, but limitations are kinda what defines art. The limitations Roddenberry, Jefferies and others had to deal with is what makes TOS the show that it is.
Mate, I miss the good old days of the 90s where I'd set up camp with a pack of Salt and Vinegar Discos and watch the Tom Baker era on BBC2 - with my age at the time though I didn't notice the issues around the visuals although watching it now I do see it more.
I am getting closer to seeing TOS as a dramatic reinterpretation of the reality to account for this stuff (although the sheer volume of "we don't have a budget so lets visit 1890-1930 America Planet" is getting to me).
Final para is definitely where I am at when I relate NuTrek to the TMP Klingons - if the tech and money had been about 60 years ago then I have no doubt GR would have made it look more or less as it is presented here.
That's the thing, we probably aren't sitting here talking about these shows 60 years later without those limitations.
Somebody had to invent the wheel we use today.
Something about Kirk pushing Sulu out of the picture to command the Excelsior does tickle me considering the stories about Shatner and Takei not getting on.
I'm sure that's not aimed at me but I'd like to say I'm not averse to the idea of alternate timelines. In a sense I'd feel much easier about DSC/LDS and SNW (all for differing reasons) if they had come out in the beginning and said the intent was to reboot. But that's not what happened so here we are.
I don't agree that limitations define art but I do believe that they can inspire creativity which in effect improves the finished piece.
Also, in no way am I shitting on TOS. All this talk of SNW being the best Star Trek show ever... No. it's always going to be TOS for me. Shine on you crazy diamond.
A fair point - from what I've read, TOS looked incredible for its time and so the limitations allowed it to stand out against the other shows which will have helped build that cult following that has eventually lead to almost 900 episodes of TV and coming on 15 films (if JJ Trek 4 ever gets made)
To me it's just interpretation of the future. The characters matter more than visuals to a degree.
It isn't even that. It is just make believe. I'm not sure humanity even has a future, much less one like we see in Star Trek.
Not having a go at you, but, out of curiosity, given your question about how common the acting style of Trek was, how much American genre television from the sixties have you been exposed to? How much is available to you on streaming platforms and the like?
Over here, post the digital transition, we've had an explosion of over-the-air digital networks specifically dedicated to airing reruns of vintage programming. They have largely taken the programmining role that used to be held for decades by small, local, non-network affiliated stations for decades before the ascendancy of cable.
So, for many of us, we grew up practically marinated in vintage mid-to-late sixties reruns: Star Trek, Batman, Lost in Space, The Wild, Wild West, the Man from UNCLE, Mission: Impossible, Dragnet, Adam-12, the color Gunsmoke episodes, Bonanza, the Big Valley, etc.
If any of those are available to you, and you're curious to see how Star Trek's acting and production styles stack up in comparison, I'd recommend checking out a few episodes from those series.
No offence taken mate - if I'm going to ask people to explain it I should also be open to doing some research myself.
Tge answer would be next to zero - my exposure has primarily been clips of things and anecdotal evidence from others. 90s UK TV was mostly 70s and 80s re runs plus the odd Sunday afternoon on ITV where you'd get an older show.
I remember watching a lot more 70s stuff (especially things like Space 1999 and BSG in which the acting style feels miles apart from TOS) although we did get the Adam West Batman on TV every so often which definitely had the ham factor turned up to at least TOS levels.
I can't say for certain what my level of access is over here is but I'm sure with a bit of resourcefulness I could find them.
The difficult bit, I think, would be giving it a "clean" appraisal. It will obviously be tainted by age, exposure to more modern shows and styles etc whereas I'd guess for people who actually grew up with this stuff it doesn't feel as out of place?
Which is the same timeline as ENT. All of Trek happens in the same continuity unless history is changed in a particular episode or episodes or a film and must then be corrected. I don't buy into the "FC altered everything" theory and really never have. A teenage Kirk learning about Earth history in school would read about Jonathan Archer, the NX Project and the Xindi probe attack.
Similar threads
