Discussion in 'Star Trek: Discovery' started by Commander Richard, Feb 7, 2019.
And there in lies the rub, as not even Star Trek production teams will see eye to eye on this point.
To be fair, though, up until DSC the various production teams saw, if not exactly eye to eye, at least through the same set of lenses.
Each show had its own priorities and its own sensibility, of course, but they all treated the aesthetic of TOS (and each subsequent show) as representing how things actually were at that point in-universe, and generally did their best to respect that. The occasional "retcon" updatings (mostly encountered in ENT, both narrative and visual — e.g., its CGI version of the Gorn) were sometimes well-intentioned and sometimes simply careless, and (either way) even those caused controversy among fans at the time. The notion of a production team intentionally doubling down on those kinds of retcons/inconsistencies, as in DSC, is a new thing as far as Trek history is concerned.
^I could have dealt with the disregard for TOS aesthetics much more easily if they’d shown more respect to the spirit of TOS. The first season of Discovery was an ugly show that paid lip service to traditonal Trek values only intermittently, and, even then, not very convincingly.
thought it was wrong but then i was too lazy to look it up - i can still hide behind 'english as a fourth language', can't i?
This is the best that I can do, I only have access to it in 720p. If someone can get a 1080p screen cap, it might be clearer. It's at 6 minutes and 30 seconds into the episode.
You can make out the Klingon border outposts though. Spock's path does seem to go the correct direction for the map seen later in the episode.
Does it matter?
TOS quadrants. They had more.
No, there isn't, but when you by design have to have the same faces literally sitting in the "front row" of the action week after week, it's probably a good idea for us to actually know who those people are.
It's a waste of resources not to.
Especially when, at the same time, you have two of the show's only actual major characters (Saru and Burnham) trading off the science station willy-nilly.
It's just very clumsy.
First, every Star Trek series, comic, book, comedy skit show etc. owes its entire existence to TOS.
Otherwise, I am perfectly comfortable with looking at Disco like this. And I don't have any problem with it. Yes the staging, costuming and makeup is different, even the interpretation of the characters might go a slightly different way from the 60s but then so is every adaptation of Hamlet I've seen and those changes don't make them any less Shakespeare.
And for some perverse reason, no matter which quadrant the Enterprise was in, it was the ONLY ONE.
I don't see how. They were set decoration in the first season. Made the ship look like it was run by more than three people.
Saru was XO for the first season and is now. But if he has an idea he should be able to run with it. Team work
What exact resources do you imagine are being wasted?
The more I read about GR and his work on TMP, the more I disagree. I think that the fandom, and production teams afterward, were far more strict in their adherence than even GR was.
In my (albeit limited, and humble) view, Star Trek was not just created as an imaginary world like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. It was created as an extrapolation of (then current) technological understanding. Now, some will regard that as being "That's the jumping off point" and treat it like, say, Fallout, where there is a point of divergence in history and respect that line.
But, Star Trek has gone in different directions, and DSC is going like Voyager, when the 1990s are not showcasing war torn USA but the USA of the 90s:
SPOCK: No such vessel listed. Records of that period are fragmentary, however. The mid=1990s was the era of your last so-called World War. (Space Seed).
JANEWAY: As I recall, Tom, you're something of an aficionado on twentieth century America.
PARIS: That's right.
JANEWAY: What will we need to pass as locals in this era?
PARIS: Simple. Nice clothes, fast car and lots of money. (VOY: Future Imperfect).
The basic conceit of Star Trek is a part of humanity's future, not just an imaginary world. As much as I enjoy the TOS aesthetic, I have no issue recognizing that it isn't for everyone. And, CBS recognizes that as well.
If you want him to answer honestly then yes. If not, then no.
Just because it is a good idea does not mean the lack of it means a "waste of resources." It just means a different way of telling a story.
Yep, when history catches up with your fiction, go with history.
It's dawned on me this episode just how bad the Klingon shit is, because I enjoy the show a lot more when they steer clear Qo'noS.
If you have to look at the same faces every week, smack dab in the middle of the action, if we know that they are important characters on the SHIP, they should be at least quasi-important characters on the SHOW.
but they all might as well be "Ensign Gates" for all that they matter.
No, they shouldn't. There is no requirement for that to be so. Star Trek has certainly had its fill of those types of character. DSC is nothing new in this regard.
That’s ok. I originally wrote Tweeky in my reply, then edited it after looking it up.
Not it doesn't
Chief O'Brien was around for over four seasons before he got any serious character development. The original series had Mr. Leslie. DS9 had Morn.
Just because a regular face is a member of the crew doesn't mean that they need to have a prominent role in every story.
Separate names with a comma.