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

[fireproof78]

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.

Then what should "they" say? Seriously. it's like the powers that be must account for every fan interpretation of their work and respond accordingly.

CBS says its in Prime. For some, that's good enough. or others, its "No way, Jose!" and everything in between. Why not treat it however a person likes, and let CBS say what they want? If it's not prime to someone, it will never be prime.

DISCO will always be Prime to me, sits just fine with ENT to TOS and the like. Yeah, it requires some mental gymnastics at times, but Star Trek has always had that. Always.

 

[Greg Cox]

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.

Or maybe they just assumed that the audience was practical enough to allow for a certain degree of artistic license.

Again, when they first updated the Klingon makeups in 1979, I don't remember anybody insisting that TMP was a reboot or set in a different "timeline.". As I recall, we all just realized that a bigger makeup budget and changing audience expectations meant that, "Oh, new, snazzier-looking Klingons."

Not sure why some parts of fandom are so resistant to simple, real-world explanations for these kind of things. Sometimes a cool new makeup is just . . a cool new makeup.

"Willing suspension of disbelief" is a thing.

 

[Tomalak]

Again, when they first updated the Klingon makeups in 1979, I don't remember anybody insisting that TMP was a reboot or set in a different "timeline.". As I recall, we all just realized that a bigger makeup budget and changing audience expectations meant that, "Oh, new, snazzier-looking Klingons."

Not sure why some parts of fandom are so resistant to simple, real-world explanations for these kind of things. Sometimes a cool new makeup is just . . a cool new makeup.

And "we do not discuss it with outsiders" was the perfect way to acknowledge it.

I don't think it helps when producers cave to fan service and write tedious two-part stories explaining something that never needed an explanation.

 

[RuthlessNate]

Or maybe they just assumed that the audience was practical enough to allow for a certain degree of artistic license.

Again, when they first updated the Klingon makeups in 1979, I don't remember anybody insisting that TMP was a reboot or set in a different "timeline.". As I recall, we all just realized that a bigger makeup budget and changing audience expectations meant that, "Oh, new, snazzier-looking Klingons."

Not sure why some parts of fandom are so resistant to simple, real-world explanations for these kind of things. Sometimes a cool new makeup is just . . a cool new makeup.

"Willing suspension of disbelief" is a thing.

"But they changed the thing! Change is bad! We can't handle it! Put it back!" - People

 

[Greg Cox]

Then what should "they" say? Seriously. it's like the powers that be must account for every fan interpretation of their work and respond accordingly.

CBS says its in Prime. For some, that's good enough. or others, its "No way, Jose!" and everything in between. Why not treat it however a person likes, and let CBS say what they want? If it's not prime to someone, it will never be prime.

DISCO will always be Prime to me, sits just fine with ENT to TOS and the like. Yeah, it requires some mental gymnastics at times, but Star Trek has always had that. Always.

And it's not necessarily an either/or thing, where it has to be 100% identical to the old shows or it's not Prime. We don't need to be fundamentalist about it.

Maybe we just split the difference and say that it's 85% Prime--if you squint a little bit.

 

[Prax]

A change in art direction can be good or bad, tasteful or artless, simplistic, balanced or overdesigned.


People are compelled to hop on one side of an issue or the other, then find an object/persons to ridicule.

 

[137th Gebirg]

A change in art direction can be good or bad, tasteful or artless, simplistic, balanced or overdesigned.

People are compelled to hop on one side of an issue or the other, then find an object/persons to ridicule.

Agreed - the recent upgrades to the Andorians and Tellarites, for example, were (IMO) superb (balanced) and exactly the way a reboot of alien species should happen. The Klingons, OTH, not so much (overdesigned). It's a mixed bag, sometimes. Occasionally it works, and other times it doesn't. Personally I think the Klingon debacle lay squarely at Fuller's doorstep. After he removed himself from the process early on, those who succeeded him likely knew not to deviate from what came before nearly as much, which is how we got these super-cool new Andorians and Tellarites. Still different from the originals, but totally recognizable and far from outlandish when it came to changing their overall look. That and you could understand what they were saying!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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?

Not the Dark Knight, but we would probably buy it if they said this of Batman Forever.

 

[Prax]

I love Batman Forever. It was the first one I saw in the theater. Val Kilmer was a good Batman.

 

[137th Gebirg]

What, no love for George Clooney and his BatNipples™?

 

[fireproof78]

"But they changed the thing! Change is bad! We can't handle it! Put it back!" - People

Avatar checks out.

I love Batman Forever. It was the first one I saw in the theater. Val Kilmer was a good Batman.

Indeed. Still one of my guilty pleasures.

What, no love for George Clooney and his BatNipples™?

No, there is no love for that...there is only shame.

 

[Prax]

What, no love for George Clooney and his BatNipples™?

George Clooney was in a Batman movie?

Agreed - the recent upgrades to the Andorians and Tellarites, for example, were (IMO) superb (balanced) and exactly the way a reboot of alien species should happen. The Klingons, OTH, not so much (overdesigned). It's a mixed bag, sometimes. Occasionally it works, and other times it doesn't. Personally I think the Klingon debacle lay squarely at Fuller's doorstep. After he removed himself from the process early on, those who succeeded him likely knew not to deviate from what came before nearly as much, which is how we got these super-cool new Andorians and Tellarites. Still different from the originals, but totally recognizable and far from outlandish when it came to changing their overall look. That and you could understand what they were saying!

Wow, I didn't notice the Tellarite. You're right

 

[137th Gebirg]

George Clooney was in a Batman movie?

Yep. Batman and Robin. AKA The Abomination That Every Batman Fan Abhors. Chris O'Donnell played Robin, Arnold Schwarzenegger played Mr. Freeze, Uma Thurman played Poison Ivy and Alicia Silverstone played Batgirl. Pretty cool cast of actors and characters, but it wound up being just kind of shit for some inexplicable reason.

 

[Dukhat]

Then what should "they" say? Seriously. it's like the powers that be must account for every fan interpretation of their work and respond accordingly.

“They” didn’t need to say anything. Just that a new Star Trek series was in the works. Simple as that. But someone in their PR department decided to say something else so that DSC and CBSAA would get more viewers. That’s all I’m saying.

 

[ISS Enterprise]

George Clooney was in a Batman movie?

Wow, I didn't notice the Tellarite. You're right

They did great with those two species. I'm getting used to the Klingons, Star Fleet unis, tho the boots are terrible

To me it's the look of the D7s etc. That is just an abomination of a Klingon ship and unrecognizable IMO. Update it all you want, but should look "Klingon" this certainly does not

 

[Noname Given]

Yep. Batman and Robin. AKA The Abomination That Every Batman Fan Abhors. Chris O'Donnell played Robin, Arnold Schwarzenegger played Mr. Freeze, Uma Thurman played Poison Ivy and Alicia Silverstone played Batgirl. Pretty cool cast of actors and characters, but it wound up being just kind of shit for some inexplicable reason.

Oh come on - Alicia Silverstone in tight Batgirl leather was nice to took at in 70 mm (IMO)

 

[137th Gebirg]

Well, yes, but the rest of it was pretty much ick.

 

[Mirror Mirror]

And "we do not discuss it with outsiders" was the perfect way to acknowledge it.

I don't think it helps when producers cave to fan service and write tedious two-part stories explaining something that never needed an explanation.

That was a joke for the fans, but fans could not laugh and take the joke.

 

[Greg Cox]

“They” didn’t need to say anything. Just that a new Star Trek series was in the works. Simple as that. But someone in their PR department decided to say something else so that DSC and CBSAA would get more viewers. That’s all I’m saying.

I think they were just trying to make it clear that DISCO was not a spin-off from the new movies. Simply to avoid confusion.

On a practical level, and as far as the average viewer is concerned, "Prime" just means "Don't expect Zachary Quinto to show up." It doesn't mean that the starboard ventral energy emitter on that schematic of The Defiant has to be in the exactly right place or it's not Prime.

Being "Prime" is not like being pregnant. You can be mostly Prime, but still have some leeway for artistic license.

 

[fireproof78]

“They” didn’t need to say anything. Just that a new Star Trek series was in the works. Simple as that. But someone in their PR department decided to say something else so that DSC and CBSAA would get more viewers. That’s all I’m saying.

And if "they" didn't say anything, the question would hang over them. Also, what @Greg Cox said.