Don't get lost in the Greenwoods.
[*Rimshot*]
[*Rimshot*]
News Starfleet Academy Coming to P+
- Thread starter Tuskin38
- Start date
*Tries desperately to think up a pun referencing Sean Kenney.*
Which makes it even more complicated, yes.
New Star Trek has just decided to throw any semblance of continuity out the window and treats TOS as something that happened, but didn't, but did, but didn't, but kind of did, but definitely didn't happen.
I wish they would just pick on. Use it, or don't. Just pick one.
The Enterprise itself would seem to disagree.
It's strange, especially with the DSC "previously on" clip, that the 1701 gets at least 3 refits in a fairly quick time period. It goes from "The Cage" configuration, to the SNW configuration, refit BACK to something close to "The Cage" version, and then a few years later gets the TMP refit.
Even stranger, the ISS Enterprise at the very least flips the refits? Seems to go from the TOS configuration to later on be refitted into the SNW configuration.
Although really, SNW is the ONLY Trek show to actually kind of say things didn't happen... "Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow" seemingly confirms that the timeline has absolutely changed from TOS and that it no longer exists, having given way to a new, similar timeline.
Last edited:
Old Star Trek never had any semblance of continuity to begin with.
Old Trek would get minor details wrong occasionally.
The treatment of TOS was... incredibly consistent across TNG, DS9 and ENT... (and now PIC)
EDIT -
As much as I loved seeing a TOS Connie in the Fleet Museum, it does make it even more confusing by 100% confirming that the whole DSC/SNW "That's just how it always looked" is wrong.
Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night. The rest of us know better.
You mean because they had faithful recreations of TOS sets? In TNG and DS9 they more or less had to, in TNG they used a partially constructed set augmented with stock footage from TOS, while in DS9 they were splicing the actors into TOS footage. Meanwhile Enterprise was just indulging in fanwank when they recreated the TOS sets.
Did Saavik "always look" like Kirsty Alley or Robin Curtis? The Borg Queen Alice Krige or Susanna Thompson?
How tall is Spock? How heavy? Is the answer Leonard Nimoy, Zach Quinto or Ethan Peck's dimensions? The Enterprise is no different.
Nope. It’s just an updated design for modern TV. No different than recasting an actor. In-universe it’s the exact same ship.
The Enterprise is absolutely different.
Recastings are sometimes a necessity. Humans look different and have different circumstances so occasionally, a character needs to be recast.
An inanimate object has no such limitations. They can be recreated. That's entirely just a choice to just not use something, completely artificial and in no way forced.
I'm generally fine handwaving away apparent size/dimension type things even with the ships. Most people won't be able to look at a visual and like, calculate by the number of windows and what not what it's relative size is. I'm comfortable with going by what they tell me sizes are. So in that case, I can just... make the old version of a Constitution "the same" as the new version. It's the rest of the visuals I take issue with. Don't get me wrong... the new version looks great. It's just... not the same thing, and just saying "Yeah it is" means that... TOS has been erased, which was my original point. Except when its not.
i'm almost certain it officially will be within a few years, when a TOS spinoff of SNW inevitably shows up. That's entire fine. Just... it needs to be it's own thing, which means TOS is relegated to "didn't happen" status. That's fine, just... pick a lane.
I'm alittle confused by your reply.
So... old Trek had no continuity and that was bad. But then when they did try to have continuity, that was also bad and "fanwank"?
That just adds a different layer to it all.
We now know for absolute certainty that the TOS-style Constitutions DID exist, just... Enterprise was not one of them? It was a different Constitution-Class.
No. What design they use just depends on who is running the show, whether they want to be nostalgic or not. They don't both exist in-universe.
Which is absolutely maddening. Just pick one.
Better yet, just make DSC/SNW it's own thing. It works better as a reboot. Give them total freedom to do anything they want without being bound to anything.
People will still complain thar they get stuff wrong or the tech is wrong.
I tend to not like comics for a similar reason.
A story told in a visual medium should keep those visuals as consistent as possible. It's the literal medium the story is being told through. If you want to change them... make a new thing. That's completely acceptable.
I don't really get the slavish devotion to "everything has to all happen even if it makes no sense". Just... make a new thing.
You'll never please everyone.
Nonsense.
There's only on refit. The one in TMP.
Indies. So, I'd rather the questions over appearance to complaints over rebooting and how wrong it is.
For me, Trek is not literal history but a dramatization of logs. The important parts are the characters and getting to know them. SNW outside of TOS is a loss, in my opinion, because ita giving me a different look at characters, what drives them.
Yes, you can put it in another continuity but you loose a depth and all over the look of a starship. Not a good trade, in my opinion.
The pretense that any artwork is invalidated because this mixture of wood, plaster, and Styrofoam doesn't match that mixture of wood, plaster, and Styrofoam is absurd.
Not invalidated as in it's irrelevant in general as art.
Invalidated in such as being a specific piece of continuity within a fictional universe.
Similar threads
