We really don't know that. Because the 24th century shows had a bit of a renaissance on various streaming platforms. Nostalgia is a powerful thing and not just where TOS is involved.
Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
We really don't know that. Because the 24th century shows had a bit of a renaissance on various streaming platforms. Nostalgia is a powerful thing and not just where TOS is involved.
I suppose you have a point there. Other than a few vague hints about DS9 getting popular on Netflix, I haven't followed their rise in popularity in streaming, so I defaulted to my experience of people who know nothing about TNG using Picard facepalms and "WTF is this" memes as reaction images.We really don't know that. Because the 24th century shows had a bit of a renaissance on various streaming platforms. Nostalgia is a powerful thing and not just where TOS is involved.
Although a studio might still think in buzzwords and believe the most valuable part of the IP is what a media executive without an extensive knowledge of the franchise would remember first.
After five years, I thought we were all passed this. Everyone knows where each other stands, so what's really the point of arguing about this? Besides just for the sake of it.
I have TOS on DVD. And it's available on streaming. It's not going anywhere. SNW will do whatever SNW will do and I'll like it or dislike it on its own merits.
I have TOS on DVD. And it's available on streaming. It's not going anywhere. SNW will do whatever SNW will do and I'll like it or dislike it on its own merits.
Is there more pressing matters we need to be discussing?
No, but I don't see what can be said now that wasn't said back in 2019. It's just wheel-spinning.
It is mine and others time to wheel-spin. Do you want people judging how you spend your time and what you say?
That ship has sailed.
Somebody has pissed on your parade, now you wanna make sure you piss on other people's parades?
It is, but that's largely due to the fact that what happened in 2019 (and 2009 and so on) hasn't changed a whole heck of a lot. It brings up the same old ire that people feel about the shows, largely because the emotions haven't really changed. People are not wanting to change.
Here's the problem with that line of reasoning. Eventually, DVDs will be a dead format. Will CBSMount/Disney continue to remaster TOS on whatever is two formats down the road? 4 formats? Will they remaster the original film, or will they use the CGI versions.
Trust me, there will be a day when they'll say that Kirk was always a gay, blue Gorn.
If they wanted us to judge a show on its own merits, they wouldn't call it Star Trek: blah blah blah. They call it Star Trek to draw that comparison. They just don't want the negative ramifications that the comparisons entail when the producers have failed.
I refuse to compare Star Trek show to Star Trek show. Otherwise, they all fail compared to TOS.
Yes.
I'll put it more simply: SNW has zero effect on how I view TOS. DSC's first two seasons had zero effect on how I view TOS.
What "they" want isn't going to change how I think. I think for myself. If what I think aligns with what they think, then great. If not, then oh well.
Oh buzz off. That will not happen, or anything like it.
Well TOS-R did both.. I think?
I know you had the option to watch with the original FX.
And another counter-point. New TOS novel are still written based on the series, have covers featuring the original actors and original Enterprise. Sure, they're not canon, but authors are required by CBS not to contradict (current) canon and I assume that also goes for the covers.
Last edited:
So many wild discussions going on in this thread. I can't tell whether a trailer would make things a bit friendlier or just push everybody further to the edge.
This is peak "PC gone mad" nonsense, but I think you've struck gold.
Star Trek pretends to be ""progressive"" and ""inclusive"" but we've yet to get a proper non-human captain in live action. What a statement it would be if they turn the most recognisable Captain into an alien species like the Gorn.
Of course making him gay and a Gorn would be going too far though. He has to be recognisable as Kirk after all.
This is peak "PC gone mad" nonsense, but I think you've struck gold.
Star Trek pretends to be ""progressive"" and ""inclusive"" but we've yet to get a proper non-human captain in live action. What a statement it would be if they turn the most recognisable Captain into an alien species like the Gorn.
Of course making him gay and a Gorn would be going too far though. He has to be recognisable as Kirk after all.
Seconded.
read what I wrote. if the book shows a picture from the shows or movies, which are canonical, then that picture they show is canonical, because it is taken from canonical sources. Logical or not?
again, trelane was a child trickster entity with flaws. or not?
other continuations in sci-fi work with retro looks. if it's all about the story and the characters, retro looks don't affect either. are straight pylons and a longer neck actually retro? :b
Ask Roddenberry.
Still, it's a tie-in book. It's not a writer's bible that the creators are contractually obligated to use and it certainly isn't a compendium of codified rules about design cues that a Star Trek production must absolutely follow in order to be considered "canonical".
For the millionth time. "Visual continuity" and "canon" aren't the same thing. They never have been and they never will be.
Why is it the end of the world if something is redesigned? Millions of viewers are completely okay with it. Why gamble on locking a series into a narrow niche of '60s low-budget TV-style retrofuturism just because some of its fans insist on keeping every visual the same "as already established?"
