Here is the case for this:
From 1966 to 2005, Star Trek production crew made it an affair of the heart to create a consistent visual canon. Visual canon in Star Trek during this period was treated akin to Star Wars (screen canon represented what actually happened), not akin to comics books. In some ways this was essential, as the setting was more technical than a comic, and technical change would entail big alterations to the consistent politics of the galaxy. Production designer Greg Jein for example, was a fan who had submitted a famous article to a fan magazine in 1973 that had been so influential, it was more or less adopted as canon. He designed many of the TNG era ships.
In The Motion Picture, the most major redesign in that era, the refit of the Enterprise was written into the script as essential to the plot. The redesign of the Klingons was later established as a real change in DS9 then explained in ENT. When the show twice returned to the TOS era via time travel, once in DS9's 1996 "Trials and Tribble-ations", and again in ENT's 2005 "In a Mirror Darkly" and "These are the Voyages...", TOS's visual canonicity was established as firm canon. Mike Okuda, The Encyclopedia, Chronology, etc, all treated screen canon as the standard of truth in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
1968, the Klingon battlecruiser:
1979-2001, the higher detailed Klingon battlecruiser:
2009, the Kelvin timeline's battlecruiser:
2017, unrecognisable redesign, appearing like a Wraith cruiser from Stargate Atlantis:
Now, DSC has been claimed on multiple occasions to be a "prime timeline" show, which in Star Trek, basically means something that fits into the 1966-2005 universe, visually and politically. This claim is despite some famous outright replacements of visual canon in DSC, such as the big controversy over the Klingon D7. Or the continued use of cloaking devices as central to the entire season's plot, in direct contradiction of TOS (an unnecessary error that was first introduced in ENT and regarded as the worst continuity error in Trek's history by it's implications, but again easier to explain away in that case). Now we have, for the first time, insight on how designs had to be "25% different" to prime Trek, whatever that may mean:
There is now evidence that the production crew were given some kind of directive to deliberately make designs different. Not just reinterpret or fiddle imagery as a "refit", but outright replace it. I would argue this entire affair of claiming DSC as prime timeline, has been damaging to fan relations. Fans should ideally be your biggest advocates. It seems that the constant talk of how the show is "prime timeline", is a strategy to sit on the fence, and try to masquerade as both "prime" and "reboot" for as long as possible, presumably to attract viewers. The fence sitting is causing bad faith. Being honest, that producers find prime's visuals too restrictive, would allow people to judge it as a distinct setting, on it's own merits. Here is a quote from showrunners:
A 'new version' of the prime timeline, is by definition, not the prime timeline, unless you are a kid's comic book. Essentially, when someone adapts Shakespeare anew, but chooses to set it in a different century, using different costumes, they are creating a new setting for the play. Likewise, DSC has created a new setting for Star Trek. Unless they throw in a few classic D7's and classic Klingons, maybe they should pick one message, and fully commit.
From 1966 to 2005, Star Trek production crew made it an affair of the heart to create a consistent visual canon. Visual canon in Star Trek during this period was treated akin to Star Wars (screen canon represented what actually happened), not akin to comics books. In some ways this was essential, as the setting was more technical than a comic, and technical change would entail big alterations to the consistent politics of the galaxy. Production designer Greg Jein for example, was a fan who had submitted a famous article to a fan magazine in 1973 that had been so influential, it was more or less adopted as canon. He designed many of the TNG era ships.
In The Motion Picture, the most major redesign in that era, the refit of the Enterprise was written into the script as essential to the plot. The redesign of the Klingons was later established as a real change in DS9 then explained in ENT. When the show twice returned to the TOS era via time travel, once in DS9's 1996 "Trials and Tribble-ations", and again in ENT's 2005 "In a Mirror Darkly" and "These are the Voyages...", TOS's visual canonicity was established as firm canon. Mike Okuda, The Encyclopedia, Chronology, etc, all treated screen canon as the standard of truth in the 80s, 90s and 2000s.
1968, the Klingon battlecruiser:
1979-2001, the higher detailed Klingon battlecruiser:
2009, the Kelvin timeline's battlecruiser:
2017, unrecognisable redesign, appearing like a Wraith cruiser from Stargate Atlantis:
Now, DSC has been claimed on multiple occasions to be a "prime timeline" show, which in Star Trek, basically means something that fits into the 1966-2005 universe, visually and politically. This claim is despite some famous outright replacements of visual canon in DSC, such as the big controversy over the Klingon D7. Or the continued use of cloaking devices as central to the entire season's plot, in direct contradiction of TOS (an unnecessary error that was first introduced in ENT and regarded as the worst continuity error in Trek's history by it's implications, but again easier to explain away in that case). Now we have, for the first time, insight on how designs had to be "25% different" to prime Trek, whatever that may mean:
"Gabriel Charles Koerner John Eaves, was the "25 percent difference" mandate creative or legal?"
"Scott Schneider Legal."
"Scott Schneider Legal."
"Gabriel Charles Koerner Man, its just baffling, considering that CBS can sell the original Constitution Class design in form of toys, model kits, all manners of licensed merch... but it can't be included in new Trek TV productions?"
"John Eaves Samuel Cockings your asking the wrong guy. I only know there is a division of property and when the task at hand asks for 25% changes or a whole new design I know that what ever it is is not allowed to be used"
"John Eaves Samuel Cockings your asking the wrong guy. I only know there is a division of property and when the task at hand asks for 25% changes or a whole new design I know that what ever it is is not allowed to be used"
There is now evidence that the production crew were given some kind of directive to deliberately make designs different. Not just reinterpret or fiddle imagery as a "refit", but outright replace it. I would argue this entire affair of claiming DSC as prime timeline, has been damaging to fan relations. Fans should ideally be your biggest advocates. It seems that the constant talk of how the show is "prime timeline", is a strategy to sit on the fence, and try to masquerade as both "prime" and "reboot" for as long as possible, presumably to attract viewers. The fence sitting is causing bad faith. Being honest, that producers find prime's visuals too restrictive, would allow people to judge it as a distinct setting, on it's own merits. Here is a quote from showrunners:
“We are the original timeline with the TV shows and movies that fit into that,” Goldsman said during a press conference at New York Comic Con. “We are wildly aware of everything that appears to be a deviation from canon and we will close out all of those issues before they arrive at the 10-year period and hit The Original Series.”
A 'new version' of the prime timeline, is by definition, not the prime timeline, unless you are a kid's comic book. Essentially, when someone adapts Shakespeare anew, but chooses to set it in a different century, using different costumes, they are creating a new setting for the play. Likewise, DSC has created a new setting for Star Trek. Unless they throw in a few classic D7's and classic Klingons, maybe they should pick one message, and fully commit.
