This. Calling The Force Awakens Star Trek wouldn't make it so, but I guarantee you that Discovery will be Star Trek. I'd even go so far as to wager it'll be the most Star Treky of all the Star Treks since the 80s.
The truth about Discovery and the Prime universe.
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
I'm getting closer to 50, TOS is by far my favorite TV show, and I don't need Discovery to look like it. Though I wished the creators were more forthcoming about it being a reboot, because that is exactly what it is looking like.
So did you expect that Russell T. Davies' 2005 Doctor Who series would look like it did in the 70's and 80's with cheesy special effects and sets & props that cost about $1.50?
What has fan fic to do with...anything?
On the contrary, such an expectation is an observant and realistic one...so it's unsurprising that such observations are being borne out as we learn more about Discovery.
Same boat, *fistbump*.
How can you be so gung ho purist about Star Trek because meaning! and substance! not pewpew! and throw overboard the very core idea that this is about us in this world having a better future ahead?
Because I respect the story that Star Trek has told. And I feel that we should perpetuate that story regardless of how our actual future turns out. Are we going to reboot Star Trek without warp drive when we finally reach 2060 and there is no Zephram Cochrane to be found? Are we going to reboot it again with sublight ships when it's finally the 23rd century and we have no faster than light ships, and no Starfleet? That's ridiculous.
The better future ahead that Star Trek depicts isn't about us, but about humanity in general. We can have a bright future without enduring a WWIII in the 2050s. We can have a bright future without Vulcanians landing in Montana. We can have a hopeful future even if there never is a James Kirk commanding a Starship Enterprise with a saucer and two long warp engines. We don't need Star Trek to be an "accurate" portrayal of our future for it to convey it's message that we can be better, and we can have a better future. To give us a message of hope, we don't need Star Trek to look how the early 21st century imagines the future; any more that we needed the Lord of the Rings to look like actual history, to convey the same thing.
I never really watched any Dr. Who other than 9th and 10th Doctors. Though I did notice K9 reappeared in basically its 70's form. Dalek's have basically been the same stylistically, as well as Cybermen. The TARDIS, exterior is essentially the same. But AFAIK Dr. Who tends to evolve with each new Dr. So if they were going to make a new production featuring the first Dr. then I would expect the 1st Dr's TARDIS and equipment to look as it was originally presented.
Just noting that some people seems to be saying: "It doesn't matter if it has Star Trek in the title, the story just isn't Star Trek enough."
While others say: "The story doesn't matter, it's got Star Trek in the title, so it is."
(that is of course setting aside the legal aspect and looking at stories alone)
If I make a film set during WWII then it better look like that era. If I show people driving around in Nissan Cubes, and chatting on their cell phones, then it's not really a WWII era film now is it? "But it says WWII in the title so it HAS to be."
We know very little about Discovery. I'm hoping for the best, but expecting the worst. I haven't seen anything yet that outright contradicts anything else. The stories told in the episodes will determine where everything fits. And if where everything fits runs afoul (and by that I mean, no convincing explanation to make it work) of existing continuity then I'm dumping the lemon. Just like I've dumped Enterprise and JJTrek.
But if it works, then yeahy! high five. We finally have some more Star Trek after almost two decades.
It's just lazy and cowardly to pander. If you want to make it look how you want, then set it in an era that doesn't have an established look. If you want greeblies, or your kewlingons*, or your iBridge then set in a time period when you don't have to work about running afoul of an established look. But to just hit the "ignore" button is lazy. And "reimagining"/rebooting to pander can be/is cowardly.
I don't know about you, but I think I've pretty much said all I need to say. Unless you all want to go around one more time?
*not that I have anything against the image which purportedly depicted Klingons. They are, after all, an interstellar empire and there could certainly be Klingons that look like that.
Last edited:
And it was (at least Clara's TARDIS was, which was specifically built to be an exact copy of Hartnell's.) But that's not the point. Since 1966 Doctor Who has been predicting what the future would be like based on whatever decade the show was being filmed in at the time. So '60's Doctor Who is not going to look like '80's Doctor Who, which in turn is not going to look like 2005+ Doctor Who. Yet it all takes place in the same universe, and nobody has a problem with that, because people understand that predictions about the future change over time. So DSC allegedly taking place during the same time as "The Cage" but looking nothing like it production-wise is no different.
Oh, and btw, the Cybermen look about as different now as these new Klingons look from the TOS/TNG ones.
Your comparison is correct, but for the wrong reason. WWII is in the past, and we know exactly what technology looks like in the 1940s. Putting modern tech in such a venue is obviously going to look out of place and silly.
ST, being in the future, means we have no idea what tech will look like. The story has established there are things like phasers, warp drive, transporters, etc... But if one were to make a ST film that showed technology that was seemingly outdated compared to 21st century technology (dial knobs, 1960s mechanical digital clock, etc...), it would look equally as out of place and silly.
In my book, the bridge of the Kelvin looked about "20 years older" than the TOS bridge -- not the TOS bridge as it was shown in the 1960s, but the TOS bridge as it is "supposed" to appear.
No big heads and foil? That's it, Doctor Who is done!!!!!
You mean like Pearl Harbour, where they used Midway Class aircraft carriers in 1941, when the class didn't enter service until 1952, named for an event that hadn't happened (Battle of Midway) until a year after the movie was set?
As we all know, no movie or TV series has ever made a historical mistake before...
As we all know, no movie or TV series has ever made a historical mistake before...
I guess I haven't said everything yet. haha.
While it's true that we don't know what actual real future technology will look like in the 23rd century. We DO know what Star Trek's depiction of the 23rd century looks like. And things that depart from that look out of place and silly. Because that's the thing, what "looks" futuristic is purely subjective. We judge it based on what we were accustomed to. But there were cars made twenty or thirty years ago that still look futuristic. Even in some cases old technology can still "look" futuristic. So what is made in Star Trek Discovery today may look futuristic today. But that's purely subjective. In twenty years it will look like garbage and we'll all be complaining about how they had (blah blah) or how they had to carried around (blah blahs). So we can keep on playing this foolish game of keepie up, always trying to "look" futuristic but never succeeding becasue time moves on. Or we can just go ahead and embrace the fact that Star Trek is what it is and it has its own style that we don't need to re-imagine every generation.
Note I said stylistically. not identically.
First, I didn't say I demanded perfection. Just a reasonable effort.
Second, Ewww. Pearl Harbor.
While it's true that we don't know what actual real future technology will look like in the 23rd century. We DO know what Star Trek's depiction of the 23rd century looks like. And things that depart from that look out of place and silly. Because that's the thing, what "looks" futuristic is purely subjective. We judge it based on what we were accustomed to. But there were cars made twenty or thirty years ago that still look futuristic. Even in some cases old technology can still "look" futuristic. So what is made in Star Trek Discovery today may look futuristic today. But that's purely subjective. In twenty years it will look like garbage and we'll all be complaining about how they had (blah blah) or how they had to carried around (blah blahs). So we can keep on playing this foolish game of keepie up, always trying to "look" futuristic but never succeeding becasue time moves on. Or we can just go ahead and embrace the fact that Star Trek is what it is and it has its own style that we don't need to re-imagine every generation.
Note I said stylistically. not identically.
First, I didn't say I demanded perfection. Just a reasonable effort.
Second, Ewww. Pearl Harbor.
Last edited:
And imagine how silly it would look to a 2017 audience if DSC looked like "The Cage."
Imagine how silly it would look to a 2017 audience if a Star Wars movie looked like the '70s aesthetic from A New Hope.
See, we can just go round and round.
Trek is a completely mythical setting - the analogy to historical fiction is nonsensical and invalid.
Similar threads
- Locked
