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

[shapeshifter]

The new "D-7" still chaps my ass!

So you finally get why some don't like the JJprise. Welcome to the Butthurt Club.

 

[BillJ]

So you finally get why some don't like the JJprise. Welcome to the Butthurt Club.

I always "got it". But the Abramsverse being a separate timeline doesn't affect the look of the original timeline. This is supposed to be the Prime "D-7" now, overwriting decades of other appearances for no particular reason.

Many of the choices they are making, while not my favorites, wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb if this was promoted as an alternate timeline instead of supposing to be ten years before TOS in the same timeline.

 

[Ridcully]

You're still harping over that???
Like it is the first time Trek just changed stuff....

 

[Longinus]

Sometimes you just can't. I understand that, We had this one the ship design as well. On that one I can't understand how folks don't see something , that to me is clear. It happens, only you know what is and is not "futuristic" looking to you.

It is a bit like how I really don't get how some people seem to be clinically unable to understand the difference between aesthetics and the effects quality, even though we have pretty much a perfect example of how to update the latter while maintaining the former in the form of Discovery props.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I realize I'm coming into this discussion late, but wow. This type of comment is very dismissive of very many artisans who helped Star Trek become what it is today: Pato Guzman, Matt Jefferies, William Ware Theiss, Wah Chang, Richard Datin, etc. They contributed just as much as Roddennberry, Coon, Justman, Fontana, Shatner, Nimoy, etc. Let's be honest - Star Trek became popular because it was greater than the sum of its parts. Producers, writers, actors, and yes, even the designers - they all participated equally to elevate Star Trek to its place in popular culture. So to say the work they did is just "window dressing" is, quite frankly, appalling. And that ultimately is what I think angers many of us about the situation, that there are so many people here who feel like you do and disregard those artistic efforts as unimportant to the recipe. "Throw out those old visuals; the guys who created them are dunsels!" Bah!

This is pretty funny considering part of Greg's living comes from writing these characters and using the props, sets and situations created by the people you think he's being dismissive of. Greg is a major fan of TOS and it shows in his work.

But Jefferies, Wah Chang and the rest aren't living today. They were living in the 1960's and essentially created the visual wheel where Star Trek is concerned.

And they would probably be the first people to move on from that aesthetic if they had the chance. Unlike fans they aren't married to the past.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The new "D-7" still chaps my ass!

Want someone to kiss it and make it better?

Seriously, though: it's never been entirely clear what the D7 even looks like. No vessel in TOS was ever called that, and we're not really sure what the term even means. Why the change would be such an issue, I'm not really sure.

 

[BillJ]

And they would probably be the first people to move on from that aesthetic if they had the chance. Unlike fans they aren't married to the past.

I find this really funny. Because some people are just as attached to the written elements to the point they won't watch unless it is called "Prime Universe".

 

[137th Gebirg]

Isn't it obvious? Teh cannon!!11!!

Did someone say...

 

[BillJ]

Seriously, though: it's never been entirely clear what the D7 even looks like. No vessel in TOS was ever called that, and we're not really sure what the term even means. Why the change would be such an issue, I'm not really sure.

The original design was specifically called a "D-7" in the Voyager episode "Prophecy". Probably a case where a fan or merchandise designation became canon, but it is canon nonetheless.

 

[137th Gebirg]

The original design was specifically called a "D-7" in the Voyager episode "Prophecy". Probably a case where a fan or merchandise designation became canon, but it is canon nonetheless.

IIRC, Major Kira also mentions Koloth's ship as a "D-7" in "Trials and Tribblations". DOUBLE CANON!!!

 

[BillJ]

IIRC, Major Kira also mentions Koloth's ship as a "D-7" in "Trials and Tribblations". DOUBLE CANON!!!

And the "D-" designation apparently goes all the way back to the original series...

I went to the stage one day, and they were all ready and waiting for me, because they knew I was really exhausted from some long rewrite sessions. As soon as I walked up to the set, Bill and Leonard blew a scene, but they blew it on purpose and began arguing very violently. Bill was shouting at the top of his voice, "Leonard! What do you mean saying this is a D-7 Klingon ship! It's a D-6!" Leonard shouted back, "No, you idiot, the D-6 has four doors over here and the D-7 only has two!" Bill immediately shouted back, "No, no, no – it's the other way around. You've got it all wrong."

While all of this is going on, I'm standing there, beginning to get frustrated, watching the minutes tick by and mentally counting the money we're losing in expensive crew time, because the cameras aren't rolling. And as the argument continued, I'm thinking to myself, "What are they talking about? They've gone too far!" Then I remembered thinking that I should remember which is the D-6 or the D-7. Finally I couldn't stand it any more, and so I walked in between them and said, "Come on, fellows, it really doesn't matter. Let's get on with the scene." Then the whole crew broke up laughing. This was their way of saying to me, "Hey, time is not that serious. Relax a little."

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/D7_class

 

[Nerys Myk]

I find this really funny. Because some people are just as attached to the written elements to the point they won't watch unless it is called "Prime Universe".

Not me, though. I'd be watching no matter what "universe" it was set in. My deal breaker has nothing to do with canon or continuity.

 

[Hythlodeus]

 

[BillJ]

Not me, though. I'd be watching no matter what "universe" it was set in. My deal breaker has nothing to do with canon or continuity.

I'm still watching. It isn't a deal breaker. I actually rather liked the Mirror universe two-parter (for the first time in the show, it felt like anything could happen). But I find it a bit perplexing that some folks seem to hang on the words "Prime Universe", but seem to care little about the actual content. Like cloaking devices, changes in technology and other changes.

 

[137th Gebirg]

And the "D-" designation apparently goes all the way back to the original series...

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/D7_class

Damn! Never heard that story before - amazing! Bill and Leonard actually sounded like a couple of us fanboyz arguing over "Bussard Collector" vs. "Space Matter Acquisition Sink"!

 

[BillJ]

Damn! Never heard that story before - amazing! Bill and Leonard actually sounded like a couple of us fanboyz arguing over "Bussard Collector" vs. "Space Matter Acquisition Sink"!

I guess that's part of my problem. They changed something that had quite a history, and took me roughly twenty seconds on Google to find that history.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I'm still watching. It isn't a deal breaker. I actually rather liked the Mirror universe two-parter (for the first time in the show, it felt like anything could happen). But I find it a bit perplexing that some folks seem to hang on the words "Prime Universe", but seem to care little about the actual content. Like cloaking devices, changes in technology and other changes.

Depends on how important those things are to the individual. I like continuity to be loose and fluid so it can roll with changes in real world history and technology. The basics can remain the same. To use a comic book example: Superman is from Krypton, His secret identity is Clark Kent who works at the Daily Planet with Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White. That's all the continuity needed.

 

[BillJ]

Depends on how important those things are to the individual. I like continuity to be loose and fluid so it can roll with changes in real world history and technology. The basics can remain the same. To use a comic book example: Superman is from Krypton, His secret identity is Clark Kent who works at the Daily Planet with Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White. That's all the continuity needed.

So it wouldn't catch your attention if they specifically set a movie or series between Superman and Superman II in-universe, with a bunch of changes that don't really fit? Like everyone having cell phones and the internet? Or the Soviet Union being gone? Or Lex Luthor being Asian?

I think it's one thing to say "Discovery is Star Trek". I can readily agree with that sentiment. It's another to say "Discovery is Star Trek ten years before TOS in-universe". That one strikes me as wildly inaccurate based on what they've shown on-screen. Everyone's mileage will obviously vary.

 

[fireproof78]

So it wouldn't catch your attention if they specifically set a movie or series between Superman and Superman II in-universe, with a bunch of changes that don't really fit? Like everyone having cell phones and the internet? Or the Soviet Union being gone? Or Lex Luthor being Asian?

It depends on how it is presented.

 

[Greg Cox]

I realize I'm coming into this discussion late, but wow. This type of comment is very dismissive of very many artisans who helped Star Trek become what it is today: Pato Guzman, Matt Jefferies, William Ware Theiss, Wah Chang, Richard Datin, etc. They contributed just as much as Roddennberry, Coon, Justman, Fontana, Shatner, Nimoy, etc. Let's be honest - Star Trek became popular because it was greater than the sum of its parts. Producers, writers, actors, and yes, even the designers - they all participated equally to elevate Star Trek to its place in popular culture. So to say the work they did is just "window dressing" is, quite frankly, appalling. And that ultimately is what I think angers many of us about the situation, that there are so many people here who feel like you do and disregard those artistic efforts as unimportant to the recipe. "Throw out those old visuals; the guys who created them are dunsels!" Bah!

For what it's worth, I later went back and added a paragraph to the effect that no disrespect was intended to the various talented people, past and present, who labored on the various productions' visuals. Just trying to make a point that story continuity and visual continuity are, to my mind, two different things and shouldn't be conflated. That's all.

And to be very clear: Never did I imply that the old visuals were bad or that their creators were "dunsels." I grew up on TOS and still love how it looks. Just saying that the talented new production folks shouldn't be wedded to the work of the equally talented production folks long ago--just for the sake of "visual continuity."