Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?

[Tuskin38]

CBS does have a department dedicated to Star Trek and it's canon.
In fact they also tell people working on the Star Trek licence what they can and cannot do with it and also make suggestions.

For example, according to the Star Trek Online devs, they're not allowed to let Federation players use Klingon ships (and the reverse) because CBS told them they couldn't.

The writer for one of the Titan novels was asked by CBS to use an alien name that STO used.

 

[Dukhat]

Nah, they have many masters, agendas and motivations.

Their motivation is to make money (or get people elected) for the people they represent. Nothing more.

Quite clearly the CBS marketing team knows what the damn Prime Timeline is, given they went out of their way to name the recent movies the Kelvin Timeline and are selling merchandise for both timelines and call them just that.

No, Michael Okuda came up with the term "Kelvin Timeline" when the updated ST Encyclopedia was published. Okuda does not work for the CBS marketing team.

 

[Tuskin38]

No, Michael Okuda came up with the term "Kelvin Timeline" when the updated ST Encyclopedia was published. Okuda does not work for the CBS marketing team.

Okuda doing that clearly inspired someone, because they recently released an art book for the movies titled 'The Art of Star Trek: The Kelvin Timeline'.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Their motivation is to make money (or get people elected) for the people they represent. Nothing more.

That's a bit simplistic.

 

[Dukhat]

Okuda doing that clearly inspired someone, because they recently released an art book for the movies titled 'The Art of Star Trek: The Kelvin Timeline'.

Good for them. That doesn’t change what CBS really thinks about what universe DSC takes place in.

That's a bit simplistic.

It doesn’t need to be any more complex. What are we arguing about again?

 

[Nerys Myk]

It doesn’t need to be any more complex. What are we arguing about again?

PR.

 

[Tuskin38]

That doesn’t change what CBS really thinks about what universe DSC takes place in.

Some part of CBS cares about the canon (even in non-canon materials), I gave two examples above, post #341

The highest people in the company probably only care about money, but the part of CBS that personally handles Star Trek does. They do have their own department or whatever dedicated to just Star Trek.

 

[Greg Cox]

Look, it's not that complicated. We don't need to talk about "timelines" or come up with elaborate in-universe explanations. We just need to allow for the fact that is a TV show, not a historical documentary.

Take the holographic transmissions on DISCOVERY for instance. Have seen those before? Of course not. So why does DISCO have them?

Simple. Back in the day, people talking to each other on video screens looked cool and futuristic. But nowadays, in an era in which Skype and Facetime are part of our everyday lives, video-conferencing doesn't look like science fiction anymore. It's lost the "cool" factor.

So, fine. DISCO updated the visuals because STAR TREK is supposed to look like it's set in future. Holograms just look more sci-fi than talking to people via computer screens.

Again, DISCO is not supposed to look like a period piece, set in a 1960s vision of the future. It's a modern Trek show for the modern era.

 

[Ovation]

Look, it's not that complicated. We don't need to talk about "timelines" or come up with elaborate in-universe explanations. We just need to allow for the fact that is a TV show, not a historical documentary.

Take the holographic transmissions on DISCOVERY for instance. Have seen those before? Of course not. So why does DISCO have them?

Simple. Back in the day, people talking to each other on video screens looked cool and futuristic. But nowadays, in an era in which Skype and Facetime are part of our everyday lives, video-conferencing doesn't look like science fiction anymore. It's lost the "cool" factor.

So, fine. DISCO updated the visuals because STAR TREK is supposed to look like it's set in future. Holograms just look more sci-fi than talking to people via computer screens.

Again, DISCO is not supposed to look like a period piece, set in a 1960s vision of the future. It's a modern Trek show for the modern era.

1000x this.

 

[fireproof78]

Look, it's not that complicated. We don't need to talk about "timelines" or come up with elaborate in-universe explanations. We just need to allow for the fact that is a TV show, not a historical documentary.

Take the holographic transmissions on DISCOVERY for instance. Have seen those before? Of course not. So why does DISCO have them?

Simple. Back in the day, people talking to each other on video screens looked cool and futuristic. But nowadays, in an era in which Skype and Facetime are part of our everyday lives, video-conferencing doesn't look like science fiction anymore. It's lost the "cool" factor.

So, fine. DISCO updated the visuals because STAR TREK is supposed to look like it's set in future. Holograms just look more sci-fi than talking to people via computer screens.

Again, DISCO is not supposed to look like a period piece, set in a 1960s vision of the future. It's a modern Trek show for the modern era.

/thread and give that man a cupcake.

 

[cylkoth]

Pecan pie instead of some puny cupcake....

 

[CaptainMurdock]

You're both wrong. A plate of fruit cubes.

 

[fireproof78]

Pecan pie instead of some puny cupcake....

Shipping prices.

 

[Dukhat]

Again, DISCO is not supposed to look like a period piece, set in a 1960s vision of the future. It's a modern Trek show for the modern era.

Then they shouldn’t say that the show takes place ten years before another show that was set in a 1960’s vision of the future.

 

[BillJ]

Then they shouldn’t say that the show takes place ten years before another show that was set in a 1960’s vision of the future.

This.

If we were told that The Dark Knight trilogy was a prequel to the 1960's Batman TV series, would anyone honestly buy it?

 

[Ithekro]

Only if it was advertised that way, and it was not.

Comic book universes, reboots, and revamps have been a constant for decades.

Star Trek, not so much.

 

[jaime]

Only if it was advertised that way, and it was not.

Comic book universes, reboots, and revamps have been a constant for decades.

Star Trek, not so much.

Hey, I am borderline DSC supporter these days, and even I know it was advertised as being ten years before TOS, and in the Prime continuity.
And of course Trek has been around for decades with basically no reboots, it’s just had its fiftieth.
Now, I am sure your meaning differs, but your words there are inaccurate.

On an unrelated note...when are people gonna realise the difference between a new adaptation of a source material and a reboot?

 

[Ithekro]

Hey, I am borderline DSC supporter these days, and even I know it was advertised as being ten years before TOS, and in the Prime continuity.
And of course Trek has been around for decades with basically no reboots, it’s just had its fiftieth.
Now, I am sure your meaning differs, but your words there are inaccurate.

On an unrelated note...when are people gonna realise the difference between a new adaptation of a source material and a reboot?

Mine was in reference to if Dark Knight was suggested to be prequel to the Adam West era TV Batman series.

Star Trek has more or less not gotten a reboot in 50 years.

Batman has...many times, in the last 70 or 80 years. In the source material (the comics) and the adaptation based on any number of versions of that source material.

 

[Bry_Sinclair]

You can update things and still keep them in line with what came before, e.g. more intricate detailing on ship hulls and in sets, ship displays and graphics can also be more modern, whilst tweaks can be made to costume (NuTrek did a decent job with that, just ignore the sleeveless female variant), all taking advantage of modern technology without impacting on presenting a good story and compelling characters. If you don't have either of those then throwing lots of visuals on the screen to distract people won't make up for it.

 

[jaime]

Mine was in reference to if Dark Knight was suggested to be prequel to the Adam West era TV Batman series.

Star Trek has more or less not gotten a reboot in 50 years.

Batman has...many times, in the last 70 or 80 years. In the source material (the comics) and the adaptation based on any number of versions of that source material.

Fair enough thought you meant DSC. The adaptations thing wasn’t in response you, but it seems to be an oddly prevalent belief in theses parts.