Transition and explanation of SNW into TOS technology

[fireproof78]

DSC/SNW by saying 'but TMP changed the look of the Klingons and it's still the same universe' or whatnot, comes from a flawed premise about why those changes were actually made. If people want to accept the visual changes and still believe it's the same universe/continuity/whatever, fine. No problem. But don't say that 'even Gene was ok with that,' because that's not true.

So how does TMP fit then? It disregards TOS yet if I say it's out of continuity with TOS people will disagree with me as strongly as the debate in this thread over TOS/SNW.

 

[Dukhat]

So how does TMP fit then? It disregards TOS yet if I say it's out of continuity with TOS people will disagree with me as strongly as the debate in this thread over TOS/SNW.

I already said how it fits in.

 

[fireproof78]

I already said how it fits in.

Was speaking more broadly; does it fit all by itself? Is TWOK a separate continuity? Or TMP all by itself and just stands apart from the rest?

Maybe Gene was ahead of the game in the selective continuity discussions we have now.

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

The only real visual continuity issue in the movies I'm aware of and can recall is the Bird of Prey bridge looking entirely different in Star Trek 4.

I guess they did say that Scotty had been stuck there with nothing else to do for three months...

 

[fireproof78]

The only real visual continuity issue in the movies I'm aware of and can recall is the Bird of Prey bridge looking entirely different in Star Trek 4.

I guess they did say that Scotty had been stuck there with nothing else to do for three months...

Plus the wonderful use of TNG sets. Boy, Starfleet hated designing new interiors and kept them the same for 100 years

 

[Dukhat]

Was speaking more broadly; does it fit all by itself? Is TWOK a separate continuity? Or TMP all by itself and just stands apart from the rest?

Again, I already answered that question. The people currently in charge of Trek canon says it's all in the same universe/continuity. How you personally feel that it all fits together is a different story (and a point that I've spoken about ad nauseum.)

 

[Ray Hardgrit]

Plus the wonderful use of TNG sets. Boy, Starfleet hated designing new interiors and kept them the same for 100 years

That's not really a continuity issue, just an observation.

TNG was using the movie sets (with modifications), so the movies used the TNG sets (with other modifications). If the Enterprise-A suddenly looked like Voyager on the inside then it really would've been too futuristic, but the only thing that ever bothered me in Undiscovered Country was engineering.

 

[fireproof78]

Again, I already answered that question. The people currently in charge of Trek canon says it's all in the same universe/continuity. How you personally feel that it all fits together is a different story (and a point that I've spoken about ad nauseum.)

That was not my intention to relitigate but a thought experiment of how to treat TMP in relationship to TOS? If they don't fit together what do you do with each installment?

Separate timelines?

 

[Dukhat]

Sure.

 

[DSG2k]

Close enough for jazz, to my mind.

"Have you ever been engaged, Mister Spock?"

Christine Chapel, Stardate 2712.4

 

[DSG2k]

Here’s the thing that people keep forgetting about TMP, when they use it as some kind of example about what CBS is doing now with their shows: The visual changes shown in TMP was Roddenberry’s way of invalidating TOS, not adding to it. His vision at the time was not that ‘this was always how things looked,’ despite fandom interpreting it that way. His vision was ‘TOS as shown, both visually, storywise, characterizations, continuity, etc. etc. didn’t really happen the way you saw it. As a matter of fact, if you want to ignore it entirely, please do so.’

Do you have some references for this concept? I simply ask because, had Paramount known this, they could have saved the million-ish dollars of scriptwriting, preproduction, special drydock model-building, VFX work, actor screen time, and so on that was spent just to explain why the Enterprise looked different.

To me, that suggests an effort at continuity, not deletion of what came before. Had it been a reboot, they could have simply already been in space looking different and said nothing of it.

 

[fireproof78]

"Have you ever been engaged, Mister Spock?"

Christine Chapel, Stardate 2712.4

Rhetorical question now.

Still works.

 

[Dukhat]

Do you have some references for this concept? I simply ask because, had Paramount known this, they could have saved the million-ish dollars of scriptwriting, preproduction, special drydock model-building, VFX work, actor screen time, and so on that was spent just to explain why the Enterprise looked different.

To me, that suggests an effort at continuity, not deletion of what came before. Had it been a reboot, they could have simply already been in space looking different and said nothing of it.

I never said that Roddenberry was good at trying to invalidate TOS. He certainly failed miserably in that regard with TNG.

 

[DSG2k]

I never said that Roddenberry was good at trying to invalidate TOS. He certainly failed miserably in that regard with TNG.

Okay, but were there references for that concept?

 

[DSG2k]

Rhetorical question now.

Still works.

The scene doesn't play that way at all, but -- as there will undoubtedly be no convincing either way -- we'll leave that one be.

 

[Dukhat]

Okay, but were there references for that concept?

If you’re asking me to quote specific sources, I don’t have those immediately available at the moment. So you can either trust that I know what I’m talking about because I’m not one to make stuff up, or…don’t.

 

[fireproof78]

The scene doesn't play that way at all, but -- as there will undoubtedly be no convincing either way -- we'll leave that one be.

At the risk of sounding flippant, I'm not trying to convince you. This isn't a persuasive essay or a debate. I'm stating my perspective and hearing yours. To value IDIC means I've got to hear more than agreement.

To me, the value of a prequel is not to confirm what I already know; it's to create a new perspective on situations or characters that I hadn't appreciate as possible.

 

[HotRod]

Okay, but were there references for that concept?

If @Dukhat says something, you can be reasonably confident there's truth behind what he's saying. Whether you agree with his opinions is entirely up to you, but if he's stating information, it's coming from a place of knowledge.

 

[DSG2k]

If you’re asking me to quote specific sources, I don’t have those immediately available at the moment. So you can either trust that I know what I’m talking about because I’m not one to make stuff up, or…don’t.

A clue, then?

It's just that I'm basically having the same conversation elsewhere and the basis given was the fictional prefaces to the TMP novel, which folks seem to tend to misread.

If @Dukhat says something, you can be reasonably confident there's truth behind what he's saying. Whether you agree with his opinions is entirely up to you, but if he's stating information, it's coming from a place of knowledge.

Same here, but, being a veteran of debates with low characters apt to reimagine direct statements into the exact opposite, I tend (a) not to just accept whatever hearsay I'm told, instead preferring the source directly, and (b) have my sources at the ready (if I didn't already open with them). Some find it offensive, but it isn't by design.

 

[DSG2k]

At the risk of sounding flippant, I'm not trying to convince you. This isn't a persuasive essay or a debate.

Oh, there's definitely been debate here, but the point was that when it comes to challenging the reimagining of acting and characterization to fit what obviously wasn't on the page in the 1960s, then -- if that objective criteria is disregarded from the start -- it would have to come down to subjective assessments.