USS Enterprise (eventually) on Discovery?

[ChristopherPike]

It's days like this, when I envy Star Wars and its ability to continue making multi-pre/sequels set in a universe with a grungey 1970s aesthetic... right down to the flared pants, mullet hair cuts, purple rinsed cougars in ball gowns and all those cassette player knobs and mixing desk levers required to reach hyperspace.

At least Trek had the imagination to get there at the push of a jelly bean.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Where and when?

Ted Sullivan, for one, has said in numerous tweets to fans who complained to him on Twitter about the look of DSC being too far advanced and not fitting into TOS.

 

[Gepard]

It's days like this, when I envy Star Wars and its ability to continue making multi-pre/sequels set in a universe with a grungey 1970s aesthetic... right down to the flared pants, mullet hair cuts, purple rinsed cougars in ball gowns and all those cassette player knobs and mixing desk levers required to reach hyperspace.

At least Trek had the imagination to get there at the push of a jelly bean.

Sadly for Trek, it turns out that buying military surplus from two different world wars and smashing it all together with '70s hair and civilian hardware from the '30s through the '80s does a better job of creating a timeless look than designing everything from scratch in the '60s.

 

[XCV330]

Yeah, she's all over the "classic 23rd century design", when it was at most a five to ten year period* in the 2360s. It's like saying "I love that 20th century look" when you specifically mean 60s futurism.

Dax was just a surrogate for Trek fans in that epsiode, nostalgic for TOS. She gets a line to that effect, which Sisko gently slaps down with "you're having too much fun!"

*Incidentally that's partly why the DIS look doesn't bother me. The TOS look was apparently a very fleeting fashion for Starfleet.

And in any case, I'm more of a classic Ezri fan.

 

[DigificWriter]

Ted Sullivan, for one, has said in numerous tweets to fans who complained to him on Twitter about the look of DSC being too far advanced and not fitting into TOS.

Has he actually used the words "visual reboot" in his responses?

 

[XCV330]

Has he actually used the words "visual reboot" in his responses?

Visual re imagining was, I believe, the term used. I wont split hairs.

 

[DigificWriter]

Acknowledging and recognizing that the terms "reboot" and "reimagining" mean completely different things isnt "splitting hairs".

Also, "visual reimagining" is something that the Trek franchise has been doing since the Motion Picture in the 70s, so it baffles me as to why it's a problem NOW.

 

[KirkusOveractus]

Has he actually used the words "visual reboot" in his responses?

Not those words, but when people complained about the visual aspects, he said that it's the same universe, but they simply can not make things look 23rd Century advanced with how the TOS visual aesthetic was.

I remember him also saying that people need to get a grip if all they're hung up on is the look of the series.

 

[BillJ]

Acknowledging and recognizing that the terms "reboot" and "reimagining" mean completely different things isnt "splitting hairs".

Both mean they are changing the look of the franchise.

 

[XCV330]

Acknowledging and recognizing that the terms "reboot" and "reimagining" mean completely different things isnt "splitting hairs".

Also, "visual reimagining" is something that the Trek franchise has been doing since the Motion Picture in the 70s, so it baffles me as to why it's a problem NOW.

I don't have a problem either way. As far as I understand it, its a visual re-imagining of the Prime Timeline. If someone wants to call that a visual reboot, I don't really know the difference. The real glaring oddity is the different look of Klingons but then Klingons have ALWAYS looked different, and frankly I am tired of Klingons anyway. Too damn clingy.

 

[Longinus]

I remember him also saying that people need to get a grip if all they're hung up on is the look of the series.

Sure. The writing being atrociously terrible is a much bigger problem.

 

[DigificWriter]

Both mean they are changing the look of the franchise.

The term "reboot" doesn't mean "to change", though; it means "to start over from scratch".

 

[BillJ]

The term "reboot" doesn't mean "to change", though; it means "to start over from scratch".

It really doesn't mean to start over from scratch, it means (at least in an entertainment sense) to restart. Superman doesn't drop Lex Luthor, Lois Lane, the Daily Planet and Krypton when it reboots. All the elements are still there.

 

[Mudd]

Sure. The writing being atrociously terrible is a much bigger problem.

Exactly so.

It wouldn't bother me all that much if Captain Christine Pike beams over from Enterprise in the season opener. As long as it's Done Well (credit: Samuel T. Cogley). Just come up with a storyline that's not stump stupid next year.

 

[DigificWriter]

It really doesn't mean to start over from scratch, it means (at least in an entertainment sense) to restart.

You are incorrect.

If one doesn't try to expand its definition, the term "reboot" in a fictional context means that said fiction has had everything - all the stories, designs, and continuity - previously associated with it thrown out and replaced with new stories, designs, and continuity that may share similarities with what existed before but are also clearly different from it.

If you are taking an existing fictional property that has gone dormant and resuming it by adhering to its already-established narrative history - either in whole or in part - you are not "rebooting" it, even if you insist on using that term to describe what you've done. Period.

 

[BillJ]

You are incorrect.

Of course I am.

 

[Push The Button]

That makes zero fucking sense. You need to have your logic circuits checked.

Bill, depends on what your definition of "is", is.

 

[Mudd]

You are incorrect.

You don't actually represent an authoritative source on any of this.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ I might not be an "authoritative source" on this, but the facts are, and everything I outlined about what constitutes a reboot and what does not is 100% factual.

 

[Ronald Held]

Why is a 1960's 1701 "dated",but a decade+ older rejected design more modern?