News The ongoing next Star Trek movie thread

[UssGlenn]

The way people talk is the relevent part of how Trek should be a future period piece. Works set in real past eras largely depict people talking appropriately. The exceptions being clear creative choices. Our Flag Means Death is a notable recent example. The thing is, the mismatch between setting and language is usually played for comedy, like Sherrif Bart in Blazing Saddles, who is the only one in the movie usually modern language/slang. Mel Brooks does this a lot.

More common is the opposite, modern setting, old language, several Shakespeare adaptations have taken this approach. Even the famously anacronistic Knights Tale uses appropriately old fashioned language.

Anyway Trek is set in the future, and we know instinctually that language will be different, especially slang. And of course the issue will only get worse as we stop using the slang that appears on the show.

Basically if you can tell me that TOS would have aged just as well if people were using terms like "groovy" "fab" and "outta sight", and TNG with " Bite me" and " No Duh", then Ill listen to your opinion on SNW being ok to use "Pro tip".

 

[HotRod]

The way people talk is the relevent part of how Trek should be a future period piece. Works set in real past eras largely depict people talking appropriately. The exceptions being clear creative choices. Our Flag Means Death is a notable recent example. The thing is, the mismatch between setting and language is usually played for comedy, like Sherrif Bart in Blazing Saddles, who is the only one in the movie usually modern language/slang. Mel Brooks does this a lot.

More common is the opposite, modern setting, old language, several Shakespeare adaptations have taken this approach. Even the famously anacronistic Knights Tale uses appropriately old fashioned language.

Anyway Trek is set in the future, and we know instinctually that language will be different, especially slang. And of course the issue will only get worse as we stop using the slang that appears on the show.

Basically if you can tell me that TOS would have aged just as well if people were using terms like "groovy" "fab" and "outta sight", and TNG with " Bite me" and " No Duh", then Ill listen to your opinion on SNW being ok to use "Pro tip".

In a pig's eye.

 

[fireproof78]

Basically if you can tell me that TOS would have aged just as well if people were using terms like "groovy" "fab" and "outta sight", and TNG with " Bite me" and " No Duh", then Ill listen to your opinion on SNW being ok to use "Pro tip".

It would have.

 

[UssGlenn]

In a pig's eye.

that is not 1960s slang, I looked up the first recorded useage, it was 1847. it's so old in fact that no one is sure of its origin.

It would have.

got any examples of other shows to demonstrate that?

 

[fireproof78]

got any examples of other shows to demonstrate that?

Because slang is not the determination of quality. People still quote Shakespeare, the Bible, Dante's Inferno, etc. These are not the debilitating phrases that cause issues. What stands out is made up slang, "That's real now." It sounds stupid, reminds me this is a made up world, and impacts enjoyment.

STAR WARS, as loathed as I am to use it, uses contemporary slang that's easy to follow. "What a piece of junk!" "That wizard is a crazy old man." Or one of Chewie's translated lines "the old man's mad."

It's not the slang but how it's used. You talk like people would and it flows, and characters come across as realistic and it works.

 

[HotRod]

that is not 1960s slang, I looked up the first recorded useage, it was 1847. it's so old in fact that no one is sure of its origin.

So it's fine for someone in the 2260's to use slang from the 1840's, but it's not ok for someone from the 2250's to use slang from the early 21st century?

 

[Ovation]

Actually, most films set “in the past” (say 150 or more years ago) are horrible about sounding appropriate to the eras they depict (was a whole chapter in my MA history thesis—I screened hundreds of films for my research). Among the very few exceptions is Le Retour de Martin Guerre, a French film set in the early 1600s in southern France near the border with Andorra and Spain. It’s extremely highly regarded for the authenticity of both the language and behaviour of the period. Relatively few people find the film relatable because of its authenticity. The past is a foreign country indeed.

 

[UssGlenn]

So it's fine for someone in the 2260's to use slang from the 1840's, but it's not ok for someone from the 2250's to use slang from the early 21st century?

most of the words and phrases you use are way older than that. at a certain point its just part of the language. there's lots of slang that originates in the mid 20th century that fit Trek just fine because its stuck around for the last 60 years. Just don't use stuff that hasn't proven its longevity.

Actually, most films set “in the past” (say 150 or more years ago) are horrible about sounding appropriate to the eras they depict

there is a balance to be had, of course. There is always a level of "translation", you are just trying not to be distracting.

 

[David cgc]

So it's fine for someone in the 2260's to use slang from the 1840's, but it's not ok for someone from the 2250's to use slang from the early 21st century?

Kind of? If a turn-of-phrase is already knowingly old-fashioned when it's produced, it can't be emblematic of the time its produced the same way more faddish, trendy language would be. Like they say, the fish doesn't know it's wet. It's already hard, maybe impossible, to make something timeless, so avoiding stuff that's already obviously of-the-moment is probably a good idea.

I remember hearing in college that it was conventional wisdom in Hollywood to avoid showing telephones in the mid-to-late 20th century, because they'd become so driven by style and fashion that it would instantly set your movie into a specific period instead of a timeless present (I think that was also more of a concern before home video, when movies had a long tail on TV and second-run theaters, so it wouldn't be as obvious as it was today that a movie wasn't a new release before you even saw it).

 

[evilchumlee]

Which Star Trek has never done.

Discovery disagrees.

First two seasons anyway. It gets watchable in the third. It's never "good", but S3 and 4 are better. The Star Trekyness isn't my issue anymore once S3 hits, it's mostly that Burnham is a godawful character and the show continues to double down on her.

They didn't.

If Strange New Worlds isn't considered part of prime timeline, than neither is TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT, etc.

Then you should love Strange New Worlds. It's deeply connected to the Star Trek universe.

They quite literally did, in the actual episode.

It was confirmed, although I guess we have to go by the Romulan agents word, that the Eugenics Wars were supposed to start in 1992, as per TOS but the timeline had changed.

SNW... exists in the changed timeline.

SNW is not in the same timeline as TOS, which TNG, VOY, DS9 definitely explicitly are. There could be an argument for ENT.

 

[HotRod]

Discovery disagrees.

Discovery is hardly my favourite Trek, but it still feels like Star Trek.

They quite literally did, in the actual episode.

They made a cute little reference to TOS mentioning the year 1996. It was pretty much an Easter egg. And let's again look at the fact that if SNW is not in the prime timeline due to the Eugenics Wars not being in the 90's, than neither is TNG and everything that followed. TOS established that the Eugenics War was the last of Earth's great wars. World War III.

TNG, from its first episode put the war as a 21st century conflict. Every single series since has followed that example. SNW went even further with showing that the Eugenics Wars were World War III.

So again, if SNW isn't prime, neither is pretty much everything else.

SNW is not in the same timeline as TOS, which TNG, VOY, DS9 definitely explicitly are. There could be an argument for ENT.

And yet Boimler didn't bat an eye when he saw the Enterprise or any of the tech. Everything was exactly as it should be to him.

 

[evilchumlee]

They made a cute little reference to TOS mentioning the year 1996. It was pretty much an Easter egg. And let's again look at the fact that if SNW is not in the prime timeline due to the Eugenics Wars not being in the 90's, than neither is TNG and everything that followed. TOS established that the Eugenics War was the last of Earth's great wars. World War III.

It's one thing for there to be inconsistencies.

It's another for the show to actually, deliberately state something different happened.

So again, if SNW isn't prime, neither is pretty much everything else.

TNG, DS9, and ENT have all explicitly shown TOS to exist in the same timeline. TNG "Relics", DS9 "Trials and Tribbleations", ENT "In a Mirror, Darkly".

SNW, thus far, has neglected to show the same.

The thing is, these stories are being told through a visual medium. The visuals are part of the story.

And yet Boimler didn't bat an eye when he saw the Enterprise or any of the tech. Everything was exactly as it should be to him.

Lower Decks is a different can of worms. I *LIKE* Lower Decks, but it really shouldn't be considered as connected to the universe. It's a ridiculous parody. That's fun... i'm down for it... but it's ludicrous for it actually take place in the same world as everything else.

 

[HotRod]

It's another for the show to actually, deliberately state something different happened.

So SNW saying it aloud is somehow more an issue than TNG showing, on multiple occasions, the direct results of a 21st century war?

The thing is, these stories are being told through a visual medium. The visuals are part of the story.

Yes, and the visuals have been updated. Rather beautifully, I think. I can look at any image of the Enterprise or any of its equipment in SNW and perfectly envision it as something from TOS.

but it really shouldn't be considered as connected to the universe.

But it is part of the universe, whether you like it or not.

but it's ludicrous for it actually take place in the same world as everything else.

Hardly.

 

[fireproof78]

Discovery is hardly my favourite Trek, but it still feels like Star Trek.

Yes, it does.

So again, if SNW isn't prime, neither is pretty much everything else.

Maybe it's better if it isn't.

Yes, and the visuals have been updated. Rather beautifully, I think. I can look at any image of the Enterprise or any of its equipment in SNW and perfectly envision it as something from TOS.

Better than a lot of other updates.

 

[HotRod]

Maybe it's better if it isn't.

I fight back hard against those who try and make the claim that SNW isn't prime because I LOVE the characters of The Original Series, and adding the backstories and experiences from Strange New Worlds only improves those characters.

Uhura from TOS is only improved by what Celia Rose Gooding has brought to the character. The same can be said for Pike, Una, Spock, etc. Hell, Jess Bush has done more for the character of Chapel than Majel Barrett ever did.

To take away these characters connection to TOS does nothing but diminish, at least somewhat, the growth these characters have experienced the last few years. Uhura goes back to being a glorified switchboard operator.

No. I love that SNW has been able to bring genuine growth to these classic characters.

 

[evilchumlee]

So SNW saying it aloud is somehow more an issue than TNG showing, on multiple occasions, the direct results of a 21st century war?

Yes.

Vague mentions of time periods still allow things to have occurred as they did. We can figure out on our own the minutiae behind it.

SNW has confirmed, without a doubt, it does not take place in the same world as TOS, and by extension, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

That's ok. There's nothing wrong with that. I

Yes, and the visuals have been updated. Rather beautifully, I think. I can look at any image of the Enterprise or any of its equipment in SNW and perfectly envision it as something from TOS.

It looks great! I don't disagree. It's a great looking reboot.

But it is part of the universe, whether you like it or not.

Hardly.

With Lower Decks in canon, we have Starfleet officers who can cut a crewmates limb off and suffer no consequences and a 100% confirmed afterlife that one can return from... that isn't even a secret. It's well known, you just aren't supposed to talk about it.

It's odd how a joke ship full of misfits has a literal manual on how to deal with ancient computers, but when the flagship of the Federation encounters a similar situation, they have to just figure it out.

LDS is great fun. I love the show. It also just makes absolutely no sense as a part of the universe. LDS makes sense as like, an in-universe show... people inside of Star Trek watch Lower Decks.

 

[HotRod]

SNW has confirmed

...that the Eugenics Wars, also known as World War III, take place in the mid 21st century.

TNG, First Contact, DS9, Enterprise, Discovery, SNW, etc. also show World War III in the mid 21st century.

You cannot stand on a hill and proclaim that the mentioning in TOS and WoK of the war occuring in 96 is somehow more validating than the further multiple references to the date actually being later. Especially when TOS has multiple other occurrencs of things being mentioned or shown in the early days of the series that we all accept as mistakes or failed attempts at establishing lore. James R. Kirk?

It's a great looking reboot.

Visual retcon.

LDS is great fun. I love the show. It also just makes absolutely no sense as a part of the universe. LDS makes sense as like, an in-universe show... people inside of Star Trek watch Lower Decks.

And yet, it's canon. Why, because the people who have the authority to say it's canon..... say it's canon. It's not up to us.

 

[FederationHistorian]

TNG, DS9, and ENT have all explicitly shown TOS to exist in the same timeline. TNG "Relics", DS9 "Trials and Tribbleations", ENT "In a Mirror, Darkly".

SNW, thus far, has neglected to show the same.

PIC has suggested that SNW exists in the same timeline as TOS - the holographic version of Pike's Enterprise at Starfeet HQ in S1, and the TOS-era USS New Jersey in the Fleet Museum in S3.

 

[fireproof78]

LDS is great fun. I love the show. It also just makes absolutely no sense as a part of the universe. L

Sure it does if you don't take it literally.

SNW has confirmed, without a doubt, it does not take place in the same world as TOS, and by extension, TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT.

Except, TOS got the era wrong all the time of when it existed.

TNG has WW3, and by extension, The Eugenics Wars, in the 21st century, not the 20th. By using this strict standard TNG is no longer in the same timeline as TOS.

Which is fine.

 

[UssGlenn]

Except, TOS got the era wrong all the time of when it existed.

yeah, remember the time they implied that Napoleon was 900 years before Kirk?