Star Trek isn't silly science fiction but a period piece. It's an invented period but you need to observe the traditions and the continuity and the styles.
Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?
- Thread starter INACTIVERedDwarf
- Start date
And more largely, my question always is this: Is TOS representative of the Federation as a whole?
Not really his job. The people who work for the people who work for him would be the ones to ask.
Lucille Ball thought "Star Trek" followed Hollywood stars on a trek.
True, but that's not my point. Whenever the universe DSC takes place in is questioned here, people inevitably say "CBS says it's prime." I'm pointing out that CBS doesn't care about that.
Someone at CBS cares. Just not Les.
Every part of what you just posted was wrong.
CBS is a big company. As @fireproof78 pointed out someone knows and cares.
I think they do, but not in the way fans care about.
A poll I did here a while ago had 10% of voters say they'd end their subscriptions if Discovery wasn't set in the Prime universe. No doubt CBS have done market research with similar results. I wouldn't be surprised if they've been told to say it's prime because they don't want to lose those 10% of loyal subscribers who'll swallow literally anything as long as CBS say it's "prime universe"
I'm not sure Marketing even knows what the "Prime Universe" is. Seems more of a production level purview.
Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. It's PR, no more, no less.
Most likely they do't use terms like "Prime" to them its Kirk and Spocks setting or its not. Just like Marvel's marketing does not use the term "Earth-616"
While I agree with your overall point, I would say that sequential art is a totally different medium. However, expanding upon the basis of that, the difference between art styles could be likened to the changing of TV tech over the years...lighting, aspect ratio, fidelity...all have changed. Continuing in that vein, and agreeing with Averofs later post about Trek as a period piece, this is why things are are both different...lighting, fidelity etc require a different approach to what passes for real, as do changing attitudes....but most importantly why so much is the same. In the case of DSC, there is no reason for those phasers and communicators in particular to look that way, except the established design.
Everything else is just comparing a Merchant Ivory motion picture made in 2017 to an episode of Blackadder made in a BBC studio thirty years ago. Or, if you prefer, Wonder Woman to Blackadder goes Forth made thirty years ago, then perhaps again to a Chaplin short set in the trenches. Detail levels, flourishes....things looking very much the same, but also sometimes very much different. Aside from the Klingon Abominations, DSC is very much in keeping with most of Trek, particularly those closest to it in time...though it does diverge quite radically from TOS, but only because that’s fifty years old. It can sit well between TMP and ENT, and it’s details show it’s place next to TOS.
Not only that, but someone if they don't know the details then they "don't care."
Hint: They care but for different reasons than a fan does.
Well I never thought I would see the day...
Well I never thought I would see the day...
I keep looking for a reason to give the creators the benefit of the doubt but find none. There's no way that ships from two universes would be indistinguishable from one another if one universe had a century head start on technology. With the exception of painting an "I" on the hull and changing a wall plaque on the bridge.
Unless another Defiant fell through the an interphase and ended up in the Prime timeline altering its development as well. Which of course no longer makes it Prime.
Similar threads
