Yeah, there's a huge difference between Star Wars and TOS, as I'm sure you're well aware. You're comparing the production values of feature films and a '60's TV show.
The truth about Discovery and the Prime universe.
- Thread starter Mudd
- Start date
Yeah, there's a huge difference between Star Wars and TOS, as I'm sure you're well aware. You're comparing the production values of feature films and a '60's TV show.
It makes perfect sense and is perfectly analogous. It is the established history of that mythical setting. In the context of Star Trek "The Cage" is a historical event.
Still doesn't apply. Star Wars takes place "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...", Star Trek is a conjectural future of this planet. Bread box computers spitting out paper reports while going "chunka, chunka, chunka" simply isn't going to cut it with modern audiences.
Abrams and his design team got things right in the new movies.
Not that I am saying it should do, but you could easily make it look like The Cage and the audience would accept it provided the SFX was good and the stories/cast/direction were good. What is visually "silly" is all in the mind's eye.
I think claiming it would look silly is very limited. Most of what makes that stuff look silly is the filming style, budget and SFX. You could easily make tweeks here and there to explain it away to get around some of the more dated stuff while generally maintaining some sense of uniformity. For instance, if the uniforms and ship design is different, that can be explained away. We might even get a cameo or two from a Cage uniform, on the odd occasion as a nod and wink. But an alien race is different, especially after 50 years of content, as opposed to the content that existed in 1979. Imagine if they suddenly redesigned the Vulcans to have big round ears and spikes on the back of their heads. You'd be cool with that would you because pointed ears now look "silly"?
If the new image is of Klingons and if they are portrayed as standard Klingons with no explanation for the difference, then it's obviously dumping the in universe continuity to a significant extent. I can understand why some fans may be frustrated with that given the obvious "prime universe" marketing of this series, irrespective of the OP's misleading post. I've invested 40 years in the franchise and in that time I have been appreciative of the painstaking lengths that he successive shows have gone to to try and stay faithful to the world that has been created. If I hear prime universe then I hope that the universe is at least something I can somehow slot alongside the rest. Otherwise they should just come out, be honest and see it's just a full blown reboot.
Again, I caveat that on the basis that the Klingons are "regular" Klingons with no explanation.
Last edited:
Not true. It is all about what the audience perceives as normal and in keeping with the aesthetic. This is precisely why not everyone is just accepting your point of view.
You realize the people they are really going after are young (18-34 demographic) and likely have little experience with Star Trek?
Silly comment. What looks "silly" is entirely in the mind's eye. If anything, looking at modern design aesthetics in general we have come around from the flashy designs of the 80s and 90s to a more simple, minimalist approach - and that now is "normal" to people. That's why, for instance, an iPod doesn't have looks of blinking, flashy lights like a TNG tricorder, but arguably more resembles a TOS piece of technology.
This whole argument of what looks silly is entirely based on what you, as an individual, find befitting of 2017. Not 2250 or whatever.
If that were so they needn't even mention prime universe. You realise that by putting that out there and not correcting it they are also trying to appeal to the existing fanbase....ya know, just as Disney has done with Star Wars?
Don't worry though. I'm just a dumb pleb. I'm sure I wouldn't know......
They mentioned it because someone asked them.
I wish they would use "The Cage" aesthetic, it would give Star Trek less credibility than Galaxy Quest, as millennials use their Iphones to skewer the show non-stop over the life of its run for looking like a second-rate Lost in Space. It would kill the franchise once and for all.
All the while, things like The Expanse continue to capture mind share as they look forward.
None of us knows anything yet. We don't know what they meant when they mentioned the prime timeline. We don't know if that statement still applies. People are getting worked up based on no information.
Personally, I'd be happy if they never directly addressed the issue, just put the show out there and let people decide for themselves where it fits.
Isn't the person who answered the "Prime" question no longer associated with the series?
So I understand, though somewhere around these parts I've seen someone claim that as the Founder, if he said it, it still applies. I'm not sure I buy that argument.
But that's exactly what they did in ST09. They took the 60s aesthetic and modernized it.
They didn't first seek the permission of true believers. So it was rejected.
All depends on the presentation. Matt Jeffries was a genius by realizing all the ships important stuff should be accessible from the inside. That concept is very realistic and futuristic. But heaven forbid a smooth hull ever be depicted to today's audience. "What, no greeblies? That doesn't look futuristic."
Now "The Expanse" looks silly. Their ships look like a hodge podge of Lego bricks. It's not as an amazing a show as people say it is. I watched all the first season and they could have compressed the thing into two episodes. Each episode was a direct continuation on the previous one. There were no individual stories. At least with Firefly, while having an overarching storyline, you also have individual stories that you can identify and remember.
I wonder how many reams of paper a starship with 200 people would have to carry in order to function for multiple years in deep space? Maybe that is why the Enterprise had no shuttles in "The Enemy Within", they were still refitting the secondary hull from paper storage to a shuttle bay! 
Well it's based on a novel. So it is one story broken up in the several episodes
You mean they actually look like what spaceships will look like once we are out in space? For all the genius of Matt Jefferies, he was designing something to look good on a 1960's TV screen, not something that would be a practical spacecraft.
Similar threads
- Locked
