Spoilers Strange New Worlds General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter NewHeavensNewEarth
- Start date
Precisely my point. If it looks EXACTLY like the 60s show exactly, I might gag a bit but I will still love it, warts and all. I just wish more people on the other side of the fence from me could be the same way. If the story is good, it won't matter EITHER way, but some people (and forgive me if I incorrectly lumped you in with them) want everything to look exactly like it did in 1966 with no changes, which would be extremely detrimental to the show.
At least fourteen years ago (!?) I heard someone on another Trek forum say about the then-new 2009 Enterprise (which we hadn't seen yet) that the new design could benefit from the early 2000s revamp of the Volkswagen "Punch Buggy" Beetle car approach. Have a recognizable and obvious shape and design lineage, with enough of an upgrade that it was noticeably sleeker and more modern. I feel that both versions of the Enterprise from 2009 and 2017 are perfect illustrations of this concept. I also wholeheartedly agree with his statement, in which case I guess I am mostly in the minority.
I'll join you in agreement on that opinion.
Also, that I feel the inflexibility of opinions is extremely frustrating.
This!
I feel like this isn't the kind of discussion where people are going to change anyone's minds, and we're certainly not going to be changing how the series is made. We can only express how we feel and try to explain why things really bother us.
I'm sure if they (hypothetically) write Captain Kirk into the show and have him able to shoot phasers from his eyes because the showrunners have decided to make him more modern, then different people would be expressing their annoyance with that, and I hope there'd be some understanding to why that might be frustrating.
I'm sure if they (hypothetically) write Captain Kirk into the show and have him able to shoot phasers from his eyes because the showrunners have decided to make him more modern, then different people would be expressing their annoyance with that, and I hope there'd be some understanding to why that might be frustrating.
While that would be frustrating and understandingly so, I don't see how it equates to an aesthetic change to the ship or the bridge.
Personally, I am at the point where I would love Kurtzman to hire James Cawley and at the end of Strange New Worlds to create a show "Star Trek: New Civilizations" with James R. Kirk commanding Mitchell, Spock and Piper. In that show everything faithfully recreated, as Cawley was known to do and watch the people celebrate it as a return to form.
Please, Kurtzman, please do it. Because nothing would make me chuckle more than people still giving him shit because he doesn't understand Star Trek because Kirk won't be right, or the film style won't be right, etc. Then it will be more apparent that it isn't that Star Trek is doing something new-it's that it is doing something new without the consent of the fanbase, and allowing other people to play in the sandbox.
I understand that a lot of TNG fans felt the same about the Enterprise-D when they first saw it. Granted, the Enterprise-D WAS the Enterprise for most of my childhood, until I discovered the strange 60's prequel Star Trek show with the narrator from Rescue 911 as the captain, and the voice of Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde from the Pagemaster as his first officer (yes, that's where I was introduced to Shatner and Nimoy respectively.
)As such, I take no issue with the crowd who are like, "Professor X was a Star Trek Captain? Weird!" Or the people whose first Trek began with the assembling of a young hotshot crew in an alternate reality, as seen in the 2009 movie.
It doesn't equate at all, except that it's a change that would be immensely annoying to someone, but maybe not everyone. Maybe making Kirk into a superhero would bring in a lot of Marvel fans and really boost the franchise's ratings.
Or here's another idea that doesn't equate: they could change the premise so that Starfleet was always exclusively a counter-terrorism organisation. Sure it's different, but you could tell some really good stories with that premise.
You can argue that I'm being ridiculous, that the characters and the premise are far more important than the designs we see on screen, but that's just how you feel. It's not an objective universal truth. I feel we'd do better empathising with other people's frustrations instead of accusing them of being inflexible and saying they're like a brick wall.
That said I personally think the SNW Enterprise bridge looks pretty great and I feel like there's a lot of room to add extra detail, complexity and refinement without outright trampling over what we've seen already. I mean hey, my TOS episodes are on DVD, they're kind of fuzzy, I'd love for SNW to bring more resolution to the world. I don't want it to look like a fan film.
You're not disrespecting the creators per se, you're just not accepting of what the Production Studio (CBS) and Production Staff states is a fact with regard to this production: IE - That it takes place in the Star Trek Prime Timeline/Universe.
If that floats your boat more power to you oh, but don't expect everyone else to accept your interpretation over what the Production Studio and Production Staff say is a fact with regard to this production.
Fair point. It would be nice to find common ground instead of having hyperbolic examples thrown at these arguments as those the powers that be have completely changed what Star Trek is, when all they have done is minor changes to visuals. I say minor changes not to dismiss those attitudes, but to recognize how they shape the larger Trek universe. I know the Enterprise is iconic, but it isn't a character the way I watched Kirk and Spock. And I feel that if I can move from "Where No One has Gone Before" to "Corbomite Maneuver" and feel that Kirk and Spock are the same characters and the universe is the same then perhaps SNW can do the same too.
PICARD: It seems that some creatures have the capacity to fill spaces you never knew were empty.
Exactly. Why anyone would care if other people like details or not is completely beyond me. Why equate observant eyes with a lack of love, when it's clearly possible that it's the opposite?
Who said it's inconvenient, or denied such facts?
Haven't seen that opinion here.
Actually, it's two brick walls talking to each other. One likes green, the other likes red, and they tell each other that one color is good and the other is bad.
One new thing I've learned in this round: There would be a good reason for phaser eyes if the showrunner who doesn't even run the show anymore wished for it, or if the VFX team decided to add that.
Most people unfortunately think that whatever their 'side' says is the truth, and whatever the other 'side' says must be wrong. The ones who love green and hate red will never agree with the side that loves red and hates green. The key is letting people have their feelings and their opinions - but that seems pretty difficult to acknowledge. It hurts no one, does no damage whatsoever, and leaves your life completely intact, if other people like things you don't like, or if they find things important that are irrelevant to you.
PICARD: Ladies and gentlemen, it is a Starfleet tradition that at social gatherings, disputes are not permitted. I hereby declare therefore all disagreements resolved.
One new thing I've learned in this round: There would be a good reason for phaser eyes if the showrunner who doesn't even run the show anymore wished for it, or if the VFX team decided to add that.
Except that literally no one is arguing for this or is planning to introduce these into the franchise. Why are (what we consider) relatively minor changes to the visuals constantly being made equivalent to radically rewriting the entire core of a character or upending the whole setting?
Even when one says "that's not how the Enterprise is supposed to look", they still recognize that it's intented to be the Enterprise with a different, incongruous apperance, and they can readily identify specific details about it that they hate and often argue that if only those details were "fixed", they wouldn't have a problem with how it looks anymore. How does that equate to making Kirk have comic book superpowers or, to use another commonly heard hyperbole, turning him into a half-alien LBGTQ woman of color?
What they say is only binding on the people who work on the franchise or its licensed material. Even then, it doesn't seem to be too binding as we still see the original Enterprise on licensed material. The franchise is working a case-by-case basis based on who they are peddling their wares to.
The changes to the visuals are minor changes to you. For me? They are quite jarring and throw me out of the story (especially a bad story). Definitely a mileage may vary situation.
Please tell me something then. During the original series run there were multiple models of the USS Enterprise used for effects shots. Said models had minor visual differences (such as nacelle caps with antenna, as well as the nacelle caps being painted differently compared to ones fitted with electric lights, or nacelles with exhaust vents, compare tin this cells with balls on the end.)
My point? In the original series run, most of these models were often used interchangeably IN THE SAME EPISODE.
If visual consistency is your Holy Grail here, how do you reconcile that aspect of TOS - and how were you able to watch or enjoy it when it had so many such visual inconsistencies, (Inconsistencies which weren't effectively reconciled until the year 2004, 40 years after the original pilot was made)?
Edited to add:
Oh and by the way, the various versions of the 1701 Enterprise I described above are also all licensed and available for sale to fans interested in acquiring those versions of the ship.
Last edited:
TNG too. I believe there were 3 main models? 2 that had some very obvious differences.
What you're talking about is inconsistency due to budget restraint, they had to make do with what they had. I know you're trying desperately to play some kind of GOTCHA!!! angle, but difference in conditions do make a difference in how something is seen.
Just a by-the-by... which DSC Enterprise is supposed to be the actual Enterprise, as "If Memory Serves..." uses the TOS series version for its opening.
I'm not telling anyone else how they should see things, just how I see them. With that, I'll exit the thread.
In the same way that you're desperately trying to claim that Star Trek has had visual consistency all through its run. The problem is that has never been the case from day one. So yes, please exit your high horse.
At the start of TNG there was a 6 foot model and a 2 foot model. A few seasons in, Greg Jein built a 4 foot model which had noticeably different surface features. Only the 6 foot model had saucer separation capability.
But the differences between the 4 foot model and the 2/6 foot models are apples and oranges compared to the differences between the TOS Enterprise and the DSC/SNW Enterprise.
The difference, if I follow the arguments in this thread correctly, is that such visuals are considered to be as important as the character details. Which is fine, even if I don't personally agree with it.
Where I disagree strongly is the insistence that these changes in visuals mean a different timeline, or that CBS is disrespecting the past, to put it mildly. Attention to detail is fine, and if I thought that Star Trek was just about the visuals I would agree. But, Star Trek is not just about the visuals. And, while I feel that this is my opinion, I also feel this is supported by the simple fact that Roddenberry changed the visuals as soon as he had the money to do so.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll
