To Mildly Go Hither And Yawn. ;)

[Attentiveluke]

What about Saavik being played by Kristie Alley and Robin Curtis? Obviously a different continuity there too.

They only had 2 actresses play Saavik because they couldn’t get Kirstie Alley back and Star Trek III included the character in a big part so it was necessary; putting Spock, Sarek and Pike in DIS was not necessary. No one can ever say Star Trek II And Star Trek III aren’t in the same continuity...

 

[fireproof78]

They only had 2 actresses play Saavik because they couldn’t get Kirstie Alley back and Star Trek III included the character in a big part so it was necessary; putting Spock, Sarek and Pike in DIS was not necessary. No one can ever say Star Trek II And Star Trek III aren’t in the same continuity...

Sure I can. Different actress proves it, if that is the standard at play.

 

[Lord Garth]

TVH is a reboot too. They changed the look of the Bird of Prey's bridge. Though 32 years late, we must boycott this. There's no other option.

 

[Greg Cox]

Are Christopher Reeves, Tom Welling and Dean Cain all portraying Kal El from the same continuity? I don’t think so. But we are supposed to believe Pecks Spock and Nimoys Spock are the exact same character from the same continuity. CBS should hurry up and come clean....

The point is not whether the characters are all in the same continuity or not. That's a whole different issue.

The point, as I understand it, is whether marquee characters like Spock or Picard have worn out their welcome and need to be retired in the interests of "moving on," regardless of whatever continuity we're talking about. Examples like Zorro or Batman or whomever suggest that some characters can endure for generations, attracting brand new fans, regardless of who is playing them or whether the stories all fit together seamlessly into a single cohesive "canon." (Which, honestly, is very much a modern obsession, as opposed to the good old days where you had seventeen different versions of Tarzan and nobody expected them be 100% consistent with each other.)

If future generations want to enjoy new and updated versions of Spock, more power to them.

 

[Tuskin38]

But we are supposed to believe Pecks Spock and Nimoys Spock are the exact same character from the same continuity.

Yes, because they are.

 

[Attentiveluke]

Sure I can. Different actress proves it, if that is the standard at play.

Star Trek III had every major actor from Star Trek II appear in it which anchored it in the original/prime timeline.Having no actors from TOS or the prime timeline at all in DIS counts against it sharing the same timeline as TOS.

 

[Attentiveluke]

Yes, because they are.

says who?. Money grabbing CBS?.

 

[Tuskin38]

Having no actors from TOS or the prime timeline at all in DIS counts against it sharing the same timeline as TOS.

No it bloody doesn't.

Doctor Who doesn't have any of the original cast but is still in the same continuity.

says who?. Money grabbing CBS?.

Nope. Says common sense.

 

[Greg Cox]

Well, since you brought it up, I'm not a fan of anything going non-stop forever. It is time, death, that gives things context and value. For me, in terms of comic books, it's the bronze age (1970-1985). I could try and encompass it all but then you get to the point of diminishing returns. All those reboots are insane. Officially there were no hard reboots until the early 1980's. Since then they done what 3 or 4 or 5? Prior to that were soft reboots and near zero continuity. There's a creative entropy that overtakes everything. You go too long you lose quality overall. You might get some high points but then you'll certainly get low points. I'm just not glutenous that way. I prefer quality over quantity. I also believe "absence makes the heart grow fonder" (or "how can I miss you if you never leave?").

On other hand, suppose Julius Schwartz had decided back in the early sixties that all the Golden Age heroes were played out, so why bother revamping and rebooting them? We would never had the Bronze Age you remember fondly.

"Eh, Green Lantern has gone on too long. Why bother bringing him back? We're never going to top those old Golden Age stories, so why risk losing quality?"

And, honestly, there are ALWAYS going to be high points and low points, regardless of what era you're talking about and how many times you revive something or reboot the continuity. Are we really going to argue that there have been no great new Batman or Captain America stories since 1985?

 

[fireproof78]

Star Trek III had every major actor from Star Trek II appear in it which anchored it in the original/prime timeline.Having no actors from TOS or the prime timeline at all in DIS counts against it sharing the same timeline as TOS.

Discovery has the Enterprise, Spock, Sarek, and Klingons. Visual differences are no different than updates that have been done in the past. For my money, I feel like Discovery has more in common with ENT and the TOS films than TNG did at the start. I certainly don't see the argument that TNG is not part of the Prime universe, though I have no doubt that I could make one.

However, you are more than welcome to not watch it or not regard it as part of the Prime Universe.

 

[Attentiveluke]

No it bloody doesn't.

Doctor Who doesn't have any of the original cast but is still in the same continuity.


Nope. Says common sense.

Doctor who can regenerate into a different persona/actor so dr who can be played by anyone. Dr who mucks about with time travel every episode so rewriting the timeline isn’t an issue. Dr who has a lot to say it’s the same show that started 50 odd year ago, DIS has little to prove It’s the same show except CBS who is deceiving people to get more subscribers by pass DIS off as something its not.

 

[Tuskin38]

Doctor who can regenerate into a different persona/actor so dr who can be played by anyone. Dr who mucks about with time travel every episode so rewriting the timeline isn’t an issue. Dr who has a lot to say it’s the same show that started 50 odd year ago, DIS has little to say it’s in the same timeline except CBS who is deceiving people to get more subscribers by pass DIS off as something its not.

All the TOS actors are either dead or too old play those parts. Your point is completely invalid.

Enterprise didn't have any TOS actors, does that mean it isn't in the same timeline as TOS?

DSC is not lying about it's timeline placement, you just don't want to accept it because you don't like the show.

 

[Rahul]

The point, as I understand it, is whether marquee characters like Spock or Picard have worn out their welcome and need to be retired in the interests of "moving on," regardless of whatever continuity we're talking about. Examples like Zorro or Batman or whomever suggest that some characters can endure for generations, attracting brand new fans, regardless of who is playing them or whether the stories all fit together seamlessly into a single cohesive "canon." (Which, honestly, is very much a modern obsession, as opposed to the good old days where you had seventeen different versions of Tarzan and nobody expected them be 100% consistent with each other.)

If future generations want to enjoy new and updated versions of Spock, more power to them.

Thing is: Zorro and Superman were adaptions. The character already existed on the page before anyone had ever played them.

Spock and Picard are original creations. As such, the actors playing them (Nimoy and Stewart) played a major role in actually defining the character itself. Any actor can have a try as Batman, because "Batman" is clearly defined outside of Keaton or Bale.

But Spock is very much defined by Nimoy's mannerism, even more so than by his character's "written" backstory. As such, trying to recast/recreate him, are much more futile than on any adapted character. Nobody will ever think of Alden Ehrenreich as the "true" Han Solo, no matter how many movies they will make with him. It can probably be done - but IMO it's just not worth if it if the alternative is creating an original character that fits better.

 

[fireproof78]

CBS who is deceiving people to get more subscribers by pass DIS off as something its not.

Yes, I'm so gullible...

 

[Attentiveluke]

Yes, I'm so gullible...

I never said anyone was gullible, you just want to believe it. I want to believe differently...

 

[Tuskin38]

I never said anyone was gullible, you just want to believe it. I want to believe differently...

Then let them believe it, why force your opinion on others like it's a fact?
You have no proof of what CBS is doing.
You are saying CBS is deceiving people, which means they'd be gullible because they believe it.

 

[fireproof78]

I never said anyone was gullible, you just want to believe it. I want to believe differently...

This is a matter of perception, not fact. Accusing CBS of deception means that people are gullible to believe them, since a deception implies selling a reality that is not true.

That's the implication, and the assertion that CBS is lying without proof is more concerning.

 

[Attentiveluke]

All the TOS actors are either dead or too old play those parts. Your point is completely invalid.

Enterprise didn't have any TOS actors, does that mean it isn't in the same timeline as TOS?

DSC is not lying about it's timeline placement, you just don't want to accept it because you don't like the show.

ENT had Riker and Troi - Prime
ENT had the USS Defiant - Prime

I’m not an expert on ENT as I don’t like it but it was set over a hundred years before TOS, where as DIS is set during the original series. (After the cage, before Kirks command). Does DIS look anything like TOS. 5% similar? 10% similar?

 

[Tuskin38]

ENT had Riker and Troi - Prime
ENT had the USS Defiant - Prime

I’m not an expert on ENT as I don’t like it but it was set over a hundred years before TOS, where as DIS is set during the original series. (After the cage, before Kirks command). Does DIS look anything like TOS. 5% similar? 10% similar?

It looks like it was made in 2010s instead of the 1960s, which is absolutely fine

 

[Noname Given]

Star Trek for the longest time wasn't afraid. The original series by virtue of being the first broke the ice. Next Generation made Trek its own.

Made Trek it's own?

Was that before of after they:

Used pretty much all the charcater types from the aborted 1970ies 'Star Trek: Phase II' and ST:TMP - IE:
William T. Riker = William Deker
Deanna Troi = Ilya
...
OPENED (IE first regular episode) with a sub-standard remake of TOS - "The Naked Time"?

Or had TOS style props in the background of most interior ship conference room shots?

Or cloned Dr. McCoy into a female version (in Season 2) right down to her being "an old country doctor" and having anxiety about any use of the Transporter. They also tried to redo the Spock <--> McCoy argument dynamic but that failed because they didn't realize that Data being written as naive in some ways (which Spock wasn't); and Pulaski came across as a bully beating up on an innocent, so that was quickly dropped.

So yeah - TNG did become it's own show (after about 3 1/2 seasons) - but out of the gate, it was aping aspects of TOS so hard, it was painful to watch.

If I compare the first 15 episodes of ST: D with the first 15 of TNG - ST: D is the more original of the two.