Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology
- Thread starter Astrostars2025
- Start date
Fictional futures do not qualify.
Definition:
period piece
noun
: a work (as of literature, art, furniture, cinema, or music) whose special value lies in its evocation of a historical period
That's not what a period piece is.
To be a period piece, it has to be set in a historical period. An imaginary future does not qualify!
Ditto!
So is there an equivalent term for stories evoking a futuristic setting?
Science Fiction
Sci fi can take place in the present or past, too, if the idea is that some imaginary tech is more advanced in what is otherwise our same historical/current world.
What do you call a story set in the future that isn't so much science focused (inventions, tech, etc) as focused on events that happen? Social (studies) science fiction?
What do you call a story set in the future that isn't so much science focused (inventions, tech, etc) as focused on events that happen? Social (studies) science fiction?
I think someone's going to have to invent one, because I'm coming up with nothing.
We can't use 'science fiction' because when I start saying that something isn't accurate to the time period I get people replying that it's just science fiction not a historical drama!
Still Science Fiction.
They do?
Okay I've come up with a new made-up term: 'constructed period drama' (like a constructed language). A drama with the focus on authenticity and immersion of a historical drama, except set in a consistent fictional setting.
Uh, no, science fiction can be set in the present, or even in the past.
I find myself thinking of the literary snobs who differentiate contemporary realism from genre fiction (and look down their pointy little noses at the latter). All fiction is genre fiction; contemporary realism is a genre in itsef (and so is historical realism). In bad fiction, the story is the slave of the genre. In good fiction, the genre serves the story (and, seemingly paradoxically, is in turn far better served by the story than it could ever be by a story that is its slave).
It's a joke.
Science fiction because stories are far better to connect with people if they're about people.
My go to example is Robert Heinlein. Now, I have no doubt that he imagined the ships in his mind far different than I did, because I wasn't as familiar with the era he wrote in. But, he did not spend much time on ship description but on characters and their response.
That's the heart of stories is the people. Science fiction is no different because of the tech or the aliens, or planets are too outlandish you need people to help you get invested. That's why the idea of a "period piece" is a poor fit for science fiction; the reaction of the people to the new thing (science, tech, whatever) is setting up the culture for the story to unfold.
Since this has come up organically, I don't feel bad throwing in my two cents, though the previous thread demonstrated this to be an unpopular opinion here.
Kurtzman has explicitly followed on from the canon policy of the JJ-verse inasmuch as they changed what was considered canon in Star Trek from what it was during the Roddenberry/Berman era. They then made prequels and continuations. They are, therefore, not exactly prequels and continuations of the previously existing universe.
So no, you will get no direct statement that it is an alternate universe, not only because that's a mortal sin to transmedia marketing types, but also because it isn't an alternate universe from TOS, to them. The new, modified Star Trek Universe they've created includes "original universe" works like TOS . . . it just also includes novels, comics, et cetera.
The prior universe, which I call the Original Universe, remains untouched and pristine.
Thus, I for one have no concern about SNW dovetailing aesthetically into the original TOS look, because it doesn't have to. Indeed, the recent news stories suggesting that the end of SNW suggests no follow-on TOS show actually makes me sad because we won't get to see the lack of TOS aesthetic contemporaneously with the stories shown in the 60s (and after) . . . because you know they were never going to rebuild the TOS sets for that.
Televised storytelling is an audiovisual experience. Changing the aesthetic wholesale *is* changing the story, especially alongside other modifications to the existing tales. Take the same Trek audio and make the show's visuals AI steampunk and it isn't the same any more than playing some other audio atop Star Trek visuals makes for the same show.
But, if you like the changes, enjoy them. IDIC!
Kurtzman has explicitly followed on from the canon policy of the JJ-verse inasmuch as they changed what was considered canon in Star Trek from what it was during the Roddenberry/Berman era. They then made prequels and continuations. They are, therefore, not exactly prequels and continuations of the previously existing universe.
So no, you will get no direct statement that it is an alternate universe, not only because that's a mortal sin to transmedia marketing types, but also because it isn't an alternate universe from TOS, to them. The new, modified Star Trek Universe they've created includes "original universe" works like TOS . . . it just also includes novels, comics, et cetera.
The prior universe, which I call the Original Universe, remains untouched and pristine.
Thus, I for one have no concern about SNW dovetailing aesthetically into the original TOS look, because it doesn't have to. Indeed, the recent news stories suggesting that the end of SNW suggests no follow-on TOS show actually makes me sad because we won't get to see the lack of TOS aesthetic contemporaneously with the stories shown in the 60s (and after) . . . because you know they were never going to rebuild the TOS sets for that.
Televised storytelling is an audiovisual experience. Changing the aesthetic wholesale *is* changing the story, especially alongside other modifications to the existing tales. Take the same Trek audio and make the show's visuals AI steampunk and it isn't the same any more than playing some other audio atop Star Trek visuals makes for the same show.
But, if you like the changes, enjoy them. IDIC!
Agree on these two points. The "Alternate Universe" spin is just fans working from a far different perspective than those who own them. This is not some divinely inspired art piece to them; it's all part of the larger menu.
The prior universe continues on without issue.
Except, taking it to a steampunk idea is altering it in a way the new audiovisual aesthetic has not. There's a whole thread on how SNW references designs from TOS. DSC fits better with ENTEPRISE, then to Kelvin and in to TMP, while SNW and TOS live better together.
But, none are an extreme change, and none of the tech is presented differently in a way that I think changes the story. So, the story can continue, both old and new, together, holding together in continuity about as well as past TOS and TNG did---marginally well.
1) because all the other shows showed a precise adherance to the aesthetic and
2) because they have veered off in a lot of other ways BESIDES just the aesthetic.
Are you also waiting for white British guy transporter chief Kyle to replace his adopted Asian son transporter chief Kyle?
yes. yes, i am.
The PU is Not our. They diverged long ago.
Similar threads
