The truth about Discovery and the Prime universe.

[BillJ]

If Discovery is a hit, they could reboot the whole series with their new style.

I tend to think it will lead to a reboot of TOS.

For the record, I'm not really all that taken with the new Klingons myself, I just don't consider it that good a look.

With the lighting the way it was, we don't know if what was leaked is really a good look or not. I'll wait and see it with the proper lighting before making a judgement.

 

[Ronald Held]

IMO new Trek in name but not respectful of what has gone before, not not needed. Why create a third race of Klingons just because they can, and a ship that seems not to fit in with designs in the 2250's

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Sweet flying fuck, all this hand wringing about reboots and canons continuities. Everyone is completely missing the big picture:
IT'S A NEW STAR TREK TV SHOW. THE FIRST ONE IN OVER A DECADE.
There that's the only thing we need to concern ourselves over. Prime Universe, new universe, side universe, who the hell cares? Star Trek is back on TV, long may it reign. That's all I care about, and should be all any legit true fan should be interested in either. The priority for this show should be to be interesting and entertaining, and if that means abandoning the chains of canon, then those chains do not have their place here.

God, THANK YOU. I could not care less about canon adherence to visual style, technological limitations, character design, costume design, ship design, any of that shit. It literally does not matter at all. What I want are good Star Trek stories. Period. The rest is just window dressing. When people start going off about how this or that "violates the canon" I just see someone holding a pillow down on the franchise's face.

 

[BillJ]

IMO new Trek in name but not respectful of what has gone before, not not needed. Why create a third race of Klingons just because they can, and a ship that seems not to fit in with designs in the 2250's

Because time and audiences move forward. You can't be beholden to a look and style that was in use decades before your most sought after audience was born.

 

[Steve Roby]

If it doesn't look like Forbidden Planet, then I say it's spinach and I say the hell with it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Spinach?

 

[Steve Roby]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_say_it's_spinach

 

[Kor]

IMO new Trek in name but not respectful of what has gone before, not not needed. Why create a third race of Klingons just because they can, and a ship that seems not to fit in with designs in the 2250's

It would be additional world-building, giving more depth to the Trek universe. Why should Klingons all look and dress the same and all have the same culture? Humans certainly don't.

And how many 2250s ship designs have we really seen, so that we can be so sure that the new one doesn't fit?

Kor

 

[Noname Given]

It's hilarious anyone is up in arms as the Klingon design was effectively redone in EVERY TOS era feature film; and THEN AGAIN on TNG. Go look at the Klingons from ST:TMP and comp[are them to STIII:TSFS, STVI:TUS and finally what we got on TNG, DS9, eta al.

From 1979 - there's never been a real consistent look for the Klingons until TNG <--- And that was only because they had to do a Klingon character daily for 7 years.

Again, much ado about nothing.

[Personally, I would have loved to see a TOS TV era Klingon on the show; but given what they did during ENT - I guess that ship has sailed for good as they will now always want Klingons to appear alien - but again as there's never really been a consistent overall look for them over the many decades of Star Trek - even as a die hard TOS fan; I don't see the reason for any uproar.]

 

[Mudd]

Every makeup designer put their own stamp on the Klingons - the modern Trek shows were all overseen by one.

 

[The Wormhole]

Why create a third race of Klingons just because they can, and a ship that seems not to fit in with designs in the 2250's

Because it's new and different. But if that offends you, there's like 700 hours of Star Trek produced prior to Discovery. It's very rarely consistent or respects what came before, but hey, it's apparently inoffensive in a manner Discovery can never hope to be.

From 1979 - there's never been a real consistent look for the Klingons until TNG <--- And that was only because they had to do a Klingon character daily for 7 years.

Even then, Worf's forehead changed after the first season.

 

[jaime]

Because time and audiences move forward. You can't be beholden to a look and style that was in use decades before your most sought after audience was born.

You want to strike real fear with that, and point out that the audience to be chased probably grew up with VOY and ENT. That should probably throw an absolute Cage purist into some kind of fit. And I am pro Prime...

 

[jaime]

I seem to recall that fans were able to accept multiple ethnicities of Klingons for several decades (didn't the Great Bird himself jokingly call them "Northern and Southern" Klingons?) so why is this an issue all of a sudden? ENT gave us part of an explanation (after Trials and Tribble-ations made the difference itself canon).

And besides, these designs really resemble the Klingons seen in TMP (which we never saw again either).

The idea of an "empire" generally means multiple groups brought under one group, the idea of different looks doesn't bother me one bit. It's an improvement if you ask me, I'm sick of all aliens looking alike in scifi.

The message at heart of Trials and Tribbleations is...things change, but it's still the same, even if it looks different here and there.

 

[uniderth]

Spinach?

I like the Filipino accented way of saying "Spinach" which sounds like "spee-nuts."

 

[Apparition B5]

The mid-23rd Century of the 1960s and 1970s simply can not be the mid-23rd Century of the 2010s and 2020s. I mean, I've loved Star Trek for over 35 years now. But so much has changed in the past fifty years that much of what was seen as futuristic in The Original Series is antiquated now, both socio-politically and technologically. If CBS strictly adhered to the canon and aesthetics of The Original Series in 2020, people in their teens, 20s, and 30s wouldn't give the show a second look and the show absolutely needs people in their teens, 20s, and 30s to watch for it to thrive.

 

[Amasov]

IMO new Trek in name but not respectful of what has gone before, not not needed. Why create a third race of Klingons just because they can, and a ship that seems not to fit in with designs in the 2250's

Wow, really? Why don't you wait and see before making that assessment.

 

[cultcross]

The mid-23rd Century of the 1960s and 1970s simply can not be the mid-23rd Century of the 2010s and 2020s. I mean, I've loved Star Trek for over 35 years now. But so much has changed in the past fifty years that much of what was seen as futuristic in The Original Series is antiquated now, both socio-politically and technologically. If CBS strictly adhered to the canon and aesthetics of The Original Series in 2020, people in their teens, 20s, and 30s wouldn't give the show a second look and the show absolutely needs people in their teens, 20s, and 30s to watch for it to thrive.

Exactly. Our vision of the future has changed, and if Star Trek doesn't change with it, it doesn't have a prayer.

 

[Amasov]

God, THANK YOU. I could not care less about canon adherence to visual style, technological limitations, character design, costume design, ship design, any of that shit. It literally does not matter at all. What I want are good Star Trek stories. Period. The rest is just window dressing. When people start going off about how this or that "violates the canon" I just see someone holding a pillow down on the franchise's face.

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.

It's not my place to tell anyone how they should feel, but for crying out loud. In the grand scheme of things, there isn't a whole lot to go off of to form an opinion on whether the show is 'in name only,' or 'violates the canon,' or 'doesn't respect the legacy.'

 

[Balok's Decoy]

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU.

It's not my place to tell anyone how they should feel, but for crying out loud. In the grand scheme of things, there isn't a whole lot to go off of to form an opinion on whether the show is 'in name only,' or 'violates the canon,' or 'doesn't respect the legacy.'

What do you mean? It is never too early to dismiss a show out of hand for not being "real" or "respectful to the franchise." That kind of kneejerk boycotting is what makes us True Fans!!!

 

[uniderth]

Exactly. Our vision of the future has changed, and if Star Trek doesn't change with it, it doesn't have a prayer.

I think it's clear by now that Star Trek is not OUR future. In the game of predict-the-future Star Trek lost* a long time ago. It no more needs to hold to OUR vision of the future than Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Firefly.

What you really means is that it needs to look kewl, neat-o, pew-pew, with an extra dose of greeblies; so that people who have been programmed since birth with short attention spans don't find something else to watch and we can bombard them with advertising.

* Though some things were somewhat accurate and Star Trek did inspire a great deal of our technology.

Everyone is completely missing the big picture:
IT'S A NEW STAR TREK TV SHOW. THE FIRST ONE IN OVER A DECADE.
There that's the only thing we need to concern ourselves over. Prime Universe, new universe, side universe, who the hell cares? Star Trek is back on TV, long may it reign.

Except by overtly contradicting what has already been established* a production makes itself not really Star Trek. Sure it may carry that name, and be owned by the same people. But if it lacks the substance, than it's just another sci-fi show; only they get to use a few special nouns that other people can't.

*without some sort of explanation that's more than "we needed a new universe so we can make things look kewl, pew-pew."