I don’t think so. If TPTB never said what universe DSC was set in, there’s no way anyone would think it was set in the prime universe of TOS. At worst they’d think it was set in the Abramsverse.
Spoilers Visual continuity - Does Discovery strictly need to show past designs... at all?
- Thread starter INACTIVERedDwarf
- Start date
I don’t think so. If TPTB never said what universe DSC was set in, there’s no way anyone would think it was set in the prime universe of TOS. At worst they’d think it was set in the Abramsverse.
Agree to disagree. People will try to make it fit in to nice little categories no matter what.
I’m fine with agreeing to disagree
All I’m saying is that at a fundamental level, I really don’t see people thinking this show is set ten years before TOS if it wasn’t told to them that it was. But that’s just my opinion.
I think the larger themes fit better than most, and the characters do as well. In that regard, it fits as well as TMP does with TOS.I’m fine with agreeing to disagree
Even if you have to squint a little
Which is worse? Being a good batman in a horrible movie or being a horrible batman in an otherwise good movie? (Asking for a friend who goes by the name "Michael")
You philistine, I see what you're implying!
Michael Keaton was the best Batman in the best (and in the second best) Batman movie! The best, no contest!
True that. I miss Keaton's Batman. I found him quite good in Birdman and as Spiderman's Vulture - both quite well within his wheelhouse. Shit, to be fair, I can't think of a single movie Keaton's ever been in that I didn't thoroughly enjoy. He's just straight-up good, IMO, and brings just as much talent playing deranged bad guys just as well as honorable good guys. So glad he's working in more prominent roles again.
Keaten was AWESOME as Vulture, I'll give you that. He was good as Batman too, but considering his immediate predecessor was Adam West, I kind of feel like he gets a lot of credit for jumping an incredibly low bar.
I’m fine with agreeing to disagree
I don't know. I find a lot of viewers just tend to assume that one thing follows from another unless explicitly told otherwise. I've actually run into people who thought that BATMAN BEGINS was literally a prequel to the Keaton/Kilmer/Clooney movies,as well as people who wanted to know why Brendan Fraser wasn't in the most recent. reboot of THE MUMMY.
If it's called STAR TREK and has Klingons and Vulcans and transporters in it, along with dialogue like "Red Alert! Hail Starfleet Command," the average viewer is going to assume it's all part of the same series. The only possible source of confusion is distinguishing between reboot movies and the other stuff.
"Prime" just means "Don't confuse this with the ongoing movie franchise."
It's set in the 2250s, why would I think anything other than it is set ten years before TOS?
Nope. Because Star Trek, even TOS, shouldn't be visually or creatively limited to a "1960’s vision of the future". Should we revive the 60's attitudes as well?
But that's the thing: I agree with you. Which is why I continually wonder why they bothered to say it's a prequel to TOS when it is visually and creatively nothing of the sort, other than to get more viewers.
Prequel=Happens before the other show(s).
Seems that DISCO meets the criteria.
And yet it looks nothing like "The Cage" which it is a contemporary of.
It doesn't have to. Its a prequel, not a slavish re-creation of a show produced in 1964-65
And again, I agree that a Trek show produced in 2017 should not look like TOS. But then we're back to the circular argument that it should not be advertised as a prequel to a show that it's nothing like visually and creatively.
It doesn't need to.
but it is. I don't see your point. it is set 10 years before TOS and is therefore a prequel of that show by every definition known to humanity
Similar threads
