Star Trek Discovery Writing Staff

[eschaton]

That's changing the subject. Your point was "Everyone who's worked on Star Trek has changed the look with no explaination..." my response (with examples) shows that's not been the case. Also, keeping the exterior look of a known ship from a known era (as seen of TV) is NOT 'rehashing' anything story wise, it's called 'being consistent'.

I'm not (and I don't think anyone else) is asking them to redo TOS (and 1960ies era Star Trek) as it was in the 1960ies. Thbe story content of ST: D in nothing like what they did in the 1960ies and is definitely not a rehash, and has been enjoyable. Likewise the set designs and looks of the new Federation ships has been fine too. BUT, what they've done to the 1701 TOS Enterprise seems a change for change sake - and is just not consistent with their claim (and they;v said) "Trust us, the show is in 'Prime' continuity, we know and respect TOS canon, and it will all work out in the end."

Again, to say 'visual continuity' isn't a thing (which is basically what yours and many other people who think keeping the 1701 looking like it did in TOS faithfully - 'too 1960ies') is just ridiculous. No one made the ST: D Producers claim that they "are being faithful to TOScanon and continuity" <-- they stated that themselves many times. To disregard the 'visual continuity' of the hero ship of TOS as it's appeared (even in the TOS Remastered version) for 50+ years just shows how disingenuous tehy are with that statement.

That's the main point I'm making here. Doing a reboot/re-imagining is fine with me. Just don't sit there and try to claim "Oh, it's the same PU you've been watching it TOS for 50+ years. It's not a reboot/re-imagining..."

The way I've always looked at it is we're supposed to believe - within canon - that the events which are shown onscreen actually happen, but they not in exactly in the manner which is shown. That is to say, Trek is a dramatic depiction of events which occur within Trek canon, not a documentary of life in the Trekverse.

After all, if it were realistic, we would see people's mouths move out of sync when the universal translator was used. And there certainly wouldn't be background music playing during the dramatic moments.

 

[Jesse1066]

I disagree. I think "Carbon Creek" is easily top ten, and several others would make a top 50 across all series.

I could see "Twilight" in a top ten also. I think it's difficult to put Enterprise into a list like this though because some of its best episodes are part of larger arcs and don't stand on their own that well. It also has a lot of episodes that are very derivative of episodes from previous series.

 

[Prax]

There was a VFX guy on here recently(in the Disco forum)and compared updated visuals, such as the Star Destroyer in Rogue One vs A New Hope, to looking at the same visuals, but with a magnifying glass.

That's how I would categorize many of the Motion Picture updates, particularly the ships. The Klingon ships are basically the same, but with more detail. The Enterprise is updated, but still looks like the same ship, and they say in the film that it's been updated. That can be said for other things as well, like the Klingon uniforms, the Enterprise bridge, etc.

 

[Christopher]

Your point was "Everyone who's worked on Star Trek has changed the look with no explaination..."

That is a false statement. I never said "everyone." I said it happens routinely, which is not the same thing. I only said "every" in the context of prosthetic makeup designers.

There was a VFX guy on here recently(in the Disco forum)and compared updated visuals, such as the Star Destroyer in Rogue One vs A New Hope, to looking at the same visuals, but with a magnifying glass.

That's how I would categorize many of the Motion Picture updates, particularly the ships. The Klingon ships are basically the same, but with more detail. The Enterprise is updated, but still looks like the same ship, and they say in the film that it's been updated. That can be said for other things as well, like the Klingon uniforms, the Enterprise bridge, etc.

Yes, that was exactly the intent in TMP. After all, TV sets back in the '60s were a lot smaller and lower in resolution than the TVs we have today, so one could plausibly believe that there was a lot of detail present that the viewers just weren't able to see, or at least that the models weren't detailed enough to depict.

Obviously that isn't literally the case with something like the Klingon makeup, but this isn't literal, it's make-believe. It's a work of entertainment and it relies on the willing suspension of disbelief -- the viewer's choice to play along with whatever assertions the story makes, including the assertion that something really looks like this instead of that.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

That's changing the subject. Your point was "Everyone who's worked on Star Trek has changed the look with no explaination..." my response (with examples) shows that's not been the case. Also, keeping the exterior look of a known ship from a known era (as seen of TV) is NOT 'rehashing' anything story wise, it's called 'being consistent'.

I'm not (and I don't think anyone else) is asking them to redo TOS (and 1960ies era Star Trek) as it was in the 1960ies. Thbe story content of ST: D in nothing like what they did in the 1960ies and is definitely not a rehash, and has been enjoyable. Likewise the set designs and looks of the new Federation ships has been fine too. BUT, what they've done to the 1701 TOS Enterprise seems a change for change sake - and is just not consistent with their claim (and they;v said) "Trust us, the show is in 'Prime' continuity, we know and respect TOS canon, and it will all work out in the end."

Again, to say 'visual continuity' isn't a thing (which is basically what yours and many other people who think keeping the 1701 looking like it did in TOS faithfully - 'too 1960ies') is just ridiculous. No one made the ST: D Producers claim that they "are being faithful to TOScanon and continuity" <-- they stated that themselves many times. To disregard the 'visual continuity' of the hero ship of TOS as it's appeared (even in the TOS Remastered version) for 50+ years just shows how disingenuous tehy are with that statement.

That's the main point I'm making here. Doing a reboot/re-imagining is fine with me. Just don't sit there and try to claim "Oh, it's the same PU you've been watching it TOS for 50+ years. It's not a reboot/re-imagining..."

When they're talking about canon they're mostly talking about the EVENTS of the PU, not the visual depictions. So far they have stayed true to the mythology of PU, we're just seeing it in the guise of a 2018 show rather than 1966.

 

[BillJ]

So far they have stayed true to the mythology of PU...

I really don't see it.

 

[Christopher]

When they're talking about canon they're mostly talking about the EVENTS of the PU, not the visual depictions. So far they have stayed true to the mythology of PU, we're just seeing it in the guise of a 2018 show rather than 1966.

Yup. Again, this is just people telling a story. And different storytellers bring their own style to the telling.

 

[Greg Cox]

When they're talking about canon they're mostly talking about the EVENTS of the PU, not the visual depictions. So far they have stayed true to the mythology of PU, we're just seeing it in the guise of a 2018 show rather than 1966.

That's a nice, pithy way to put it. Works for me.

 

[fireproof78]

I'm not going to quibble over actor replacements, but the look of the 1701 is WELL KNOWN for that timeframe, so a major change to that look (and it is a major change.) Also it's the FIRST TIME in the 50+ year history of the franchise that particular hero ship look has been so radically changed (it wasn't done for DS9 - "Trials and Tribbleations" nor ENT - "In a Mirror Darkly") so sorry, your claim that "it's always been done when new peopl,e take over" is just plain false/inaccurate to that point.

Experimental engines-didn't work. Replaced them with the old ones.

Done.

 

[Christopher]

To people who have trouble with the idea of the Enterprise having two different looks without explanation: Think about all the TOS episodes that cut back and forth between stock footage of the series version of the ship -- with the swirly nacelle caps, rear nacelle domes, low bridge module, and small deflector dish -- and the pilot version -- with the solid, spired nacelle caps, rear nacelle grilles, high bridge module, and big deflector dish -- sometimes in consecutive shots. There was also the smaller 33-inch model used for long shots, which had a distinctly different saucer curvature and no internal lighting. So three distinctly different designs of the ship were being used interchangeably throughout TOS to represent the same ship at the same time, their differences in detail ignored. We tend to accept the series-refitted 11-foot model as the "definitive" look for the ship at that time, since it was the one used most often, but it was hardly used exclusively. The pretense that the TOS ship ever had a single unvarying look is more wishful thinking than fact.

For that matter, TNG did the same thing with the 4-foot Enterprise-D model introduced late in season 3 and the 6-foot ILM version built for the pilot. The two miniatures had distinct differences in the level of surface detail, the thickness of the saucer rim, the curvature of the saucer and the deflector dish, etc., yet the show frequently used stock footage of both miniatures within the same episode or sequence.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

I really don't see it.

I do.

 

[Mudd]

So far they have stayed true to the mythology of PU....

No.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

Random folks online disputing that point with smilie gifs that doesn't really make it so, but you can always try.

 

[fireproof78]

Random folks online disputing that point with smilie gifs that doesn't really make it so, but you can always try.

But, isn't that how you win the Interwebz...?

 

[MakeshiftPython]

But, isn't that how you win the Interwebz...?

Shit, you used FIVE.

Guess you win.

 

[fireproof78]

Shit, you used FIVE.

Guess you win.

 

[eschaton]

Another example of how what is seen on Trek isn't supposed to be taken literally is that people have been recast - and not just in the case of the reboot movies. Ziyal was famously played by three different actresses on DS9, and Quark's mother by two. Saavik changed (unfortunately) from Kirstie Alley to Robin Curtis. And of course there are the numerous cases where child characters have aged unusually fast, or adults have played child characters (or vice versa) and have looked little like the original actor. We don't need any in-story explanation which involves cosmetic surgery here. We're just supposed to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story.

 

[fireproof78]

Another example of how what is seen on Trek isn't supposed to be taken literally is that people have been recast - and not just in the case of the reboot movies. Ziyal was famously played by three different actresses on DS9, and Quark's mother by two. Saavik changed (unfortunately) from Kirstie Alley to Robin Curtis. And of course there are the numerous cases where child characters have aged unusually fast, or adults have played child characters (or vice versa) and have looked little like the original actor. We don't need any in-story explanation which involves cosmetic surgery here. We're just supposed to suspend disbelief for the sake of the story.

But, but...THE ENTERPRISE!!!!!!!!

I think that's enough. Overall, I tend to agree. There is level of suspnsion of disbelief that I genuinely think is being missed here. The insistence that visuals must be immutable is frankly, a rather odd position for a fan base that embraces positive changes in humanity, and a show that is humanistic at its core, and that technology is beneficial. Instead, change is regarded about as well as holy water by a vampire.

 

[Vger23]

The way I've always looked at it is we're supposed to believe - within canon - that the events which are shown onscreen actually happen, but they not in exactly in the manner which is shown. That is to say, Trek is a dramatic depiction of events which occur within Trek canon, not a documentary of life in the Trekverse.

After all, if it were realistic, we would see people's mouths move out of sync when the universal translator was used. And there certainly wouldn't be background music playing during the dramatic moments.

For everyone who gets upset about continuity and aesthetics, I think this is a very good way of dealing with it. It's one of the few off-the-wall concepts from the TMP novel that I've embraced.

To people who have trouble with the idea of the Enterprise having two different looks without explanation: Think about all the TOS episodes that cut back and forth between stock footage of the series version of the ship -- with the swirly nacelle caps, rear nacelle domes, low bridge module, and small deflector dish -- and the pilot version -- with the solid, spired nacelle caps, rear nacelle grilles, high bridge module, and big deflector dish -- sometimes in consecutive shots. There was also the smaller 33-inch model used for long shots, which had a distinctly different saucer curvature and no internal lighting. So three distinctly different designs of the ship were being used interchangeably throughout TOS to represent the same ship at the same time, their differences in detail ignored. We tend to accept the series-refitted 11-foot model as the "definitive" look for the ship at that time, since it was the one used most often, but it was hardly used exclusively. The pretense that the TOS ship ever had a single unvarying look is more wishful thinking than fact.

For that matter, TNG did the same thing with the 4-foot Enterprise-D model introduced late in season 3 and the 6-foot ILM version built for the pilot. The two miniatures had distinct differences in the level of surface detail, the thickness of the saucer rim, the curvature of the saucer and the deflector dish, etc., yet the show frequently used stock footage of both miniatures within the same episode or sequence.

Bingo...very well put. Even the Enterprise-E varied in its configuration and paint scheme from movie to movie.

 

[MakeshiftPython]

And Voyager would seem to get Alpha Quadrant tech upgrades with equipment that we see on DS9, despite being out of contact. The only exception was keeping the old uniforms.