Theory for TOS Enterprise and Disco Enterprise differences

[fireproof78]

No offense, but that's a bit belittling to people who clearly see a major difference between DSC and TOS, and more than just what the sets look like.

That was not the intent.

ETA (for clarification: Allow me to be more clear. Individuals see differences between DSC and TOS, in terms of characters (Pike, Sarek) as well as story and visual content. Despite assertions by the production team those differences are irreconcilable to being a prequel to TOS.

As I said, not my intent to belittle. I simply do not share in the conclusion that because of these differences it must not be the same. And I'll die on this particular hill regarding TMP-it does not feel like TOS to me, at all, and none of the Berman era Trek feel in line with TOS.

 

[saladdays]

So let's look at this another way: ENT showed both Tholians and Gorn, which were both CGI creations based on an inanimate head and a guy in a rubber lizard suit from TOS, respectively. Would I rather have seen an inanimate head and a guy in a lizard suit on ENT, even though that's what they were in TOS? No, of course not. I would want the producers of ENT to utilize their production values to create something better than that, but having it be close enough to the source material where it's believable that they are the same things. This, in my opinion, is not what DSC is doing. They're deliberately making everything look different, while at the same time saying it's exactly the same. That doesn't compute with me. If you want to make everything look different, fine. But don't say it's the same thing, and now the thing it's supposed to look like is now invalidated. Just call it a reboot. How hard would that be?

Don't most (all?) reboots start with a clean slate to some extent? I mean, there is source material that is drawn on, but facts and events don't always mesh with the original. I just feel like I don't want to consider anything a reboot until we've seen more evidence beyond the way things "look" and certain more minor discrepancies (like the heavy use of holograms instead of viewscreens), many of which can plausibly be explained away somehow. But I can respect that you and others don't feel the same way.

Also, just a thought, is it possible to have a reimagining of a property like this without going full-on reboot?

 

[Dukhat]

Also, just a thought, is it possible to have a reimagining of a property like this without going full-on reboot?

Well, JJ Abrams's logic was to create an alternate universe that branched off of the prime universe, so that he could reimagine everything (and not have to deal with 50+ years of canon and continuity) while still paying homage to the source material. IMHO, he did it correctly.

I feel like the producers of DSC's logic is to just create something completely different, call it the 'prime universe' for marketing reasons, and really have it bear little resemblance to what it's paying homage to other than having some of its characters have the same names as characters in TOS.

 

[fireproof78]

Also, just a thought, is it possible to have a reimagining of a property like this without going full-on reboot?

I think Star Trek has done it multiple times.

 

[Amasov]

Let me give an example to be clearer: Rogue One (2016) was a direct prequel to SW: A New Hope (1977), made 39 years after the latter, but has sets, props, costumes, models etc. that are exactly the same as the film it is a prequel of. Why? Because the producers specifically made R1 as a prequel, so it needed to exactly match what we saw in ANH in every way. It was completely believable that this movie made with the production values of 2016 was able to recreate the same look and feel of a movie made in 1977.

Now contrast that with DSC. It's clear that the show, while visually stunning and using the newest production values available, does not even remotely try to look and feel like the 50+ year old show it's supposedly trying to be a prequel of. And it's not like they couldn't have tried, since R1 pulled it off just fine. It's almost as if it wasn't originally meant to be a prequel to TOS, and that someone just made that decision later in the process after production was already commencing (No, I'm not implying that that's what actually happened. I'm just saying that's what it felt like to me.)

So when I said "a show produced in 2018 with 2018 production values that claims to be a prequel to a show produced in the '60's with '60's production values is rather silly," I meant that there was literally no effort to use those 2018 production values to recreate the look and feel of TOS, and instead made a show that looks and feels more like it takes place either post-TUC or even post-TNG (again, my opinion). As I stated before, I like DSC on its own merits, I think it looks great, and I hope that it continues and gets better. But to me, there's nothing about it that remotely makes me feel like it takes place ten years before TOS, which is what the show is advertised as being. And really, I don't need it to look like TOS. I just need to treat it like the reboot that it actually is.

But also that's because Rogue One took place moments before A New Hope, don't forget. You HAVE to make them look the same if it is to be believed that these two movies are back to back. The gap between Discovery and TOS is much longer and so, I'm willing to see what they do to explain this, if it all.

Even if Discovery does manage to make its universe look like TOS by the end, I'm sure the haters will still complain about HOW it was done.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Also, while the line is being blurred somewhat these days (especially with big-budget cable and streaming shows like Game of Thrones), big-budget movies still have a tremendous advantage over contemporary television shows in terms of special effects. So while, for example, 2001 and TOS are contemporaries, 2001's FX hold up a lot better and are still considered pretty impressive, and the sets could be used on a spacecraft today.

Likewise, Star Wars still holds up pretty well too, so you don't really need to do much with the Star Destroyers and Death Star. I still think Return of the Jedi's space battle has yet to be surpassed onscreen. The graphical interfaces in ANH are very 70s, but Rogue One kept it similar but updated. But they added a ton of new ships, fighters, ground vehicles, Stormtroopers, etc. that we didn't see in A New Hope.

 

[Dukhat]

But also that's because Rogue One took place moments before A New Hope, don't forget. You HAVE to make them look the same if it is to be believed that these two movies are back to back. The gap between Discovery and TOS is much longer and so, I'm willing to see what they do to explain this, if it all.

Even if Discovery does manage to make its universe look like TOS by the end, I'm sure the haters will still complain about HOW it was done.

Eh, I wouldn’t care all that much. But while I like DSC, I don’t think it’s going to last for ten seasons, unless they artificially speed things up.

 

[fireproof78]

But also that's because Rogue One took place moments before A New Hope, don't forget. You HAVE to make them look the same if it is to be believed that these two movies are back to back. The gap between Discovery and TOS is much longer and so, I'm willing to see what they do to explain this, if it all.

Even if Discovery does manage to make its universe look like TOS by the end, I'm sure the haters will still complain about HOW it was done.

Here's my thing-you are going to have complaints no matter what. No matter how faithful a work is there are always places to critique. It is the nature of art. And, everyone's threshold is different in terms of what makes or breaks that sense of continuation.

 

[Amasov]

Here's my thing-you are going to have complaints no matter what. No matter how faithful a work is there are always places to critique. It is the nature of art. And, everyone's threshold is different in terms of what makes or breaks that sense of continuation.

Absolutely agreed.

 

[WarpFactorZ]

If you want the boring reason here it is.
...

The entire art department was rather shocked when the episode aired and they saw something they didn't design.

I have a question for you. There's been a rumour on this forum for a while that the designers were required to make the new Enterprise "25% different" than any previous design, due to nebulous legal / IP reasons. Is there any truth to that?

 

[Tuskin38]

I have a question for you. There's been a rumour on this forum for a while that the designers were required to make the new Enterprise "25% different" than any previous design, due to nebulous legal / IP reasons. Is there any truth to that?

CBS has already debunked that

 

[David cgc]

I heard Eaves gave an explanation for the "25% different" thing in an interview (which aside from his Facebook comment, also appears on the concept art in is book, as a handwritten note pointing out the engineering pennant having two stripes instead of three), but no one told me what it actually was.

 

[Tuskin38]

I heard Eaves gave an explanation for the "25% different" thing in an interview (which aside from his Facebook comment, also appears on the concept art in is book, as a handwritten note pointing out the engineering pennant having two stripes instead of three), but no one told me what it actually was.

Yeah, he hasn't stopped talking about the 25%, he's just changed the reason why.

He originally thought it was because CBS didn't own the rights due to the Viacom split (which is why CBS made that statement saying they do own them).

But now I'm forgetting what he's saying the reason is now.

 

[Hythlodeus]

Yeah, he hasn't stopped talking about the 25%, he's just changed the reason why.

He originally thought it was because CBS didn't own the rights due to the Viacom split (which is why CBS made that statement saying they do own them).

But now I'm forgetting what he's saying the reason is now.

creative reasons.

which probably just means new merchandise that can be produced.

but I have to say, from a pure creative point of view, I'd rather have to make a 50 year old starship 25% (whatever that means, it's not like design can be quantified) different and be able to put my own spin on it than to just deliver a tired carbon copy of the original, which would be very unsatisfying