I'm more of a Laverne, but thanks!
Was it ever really possible to do a pure prime prequel in the "TOS" era?
- Thread starter Jayson1
- Start date
You say schlemiel, I say schlimazel....
(*Drinks a cold Schotz as studio audience laughs at our posts*)
I say Shvartzes
Ugggh. Look at that horrible flat blank wall behind her. It looks so primitive like painted plywood. 'muh eyes!
Just a idea but if they wanted to do something really different but still make it feel like it's in the prime universe why not just go with a alien design or a ship that looks completely different like a aircraft carrier.
Not to mention you can get away with alot by just saying the ship is new and experimental. Keep the Kelvin Universe uniforms and you got a winner.
Jason
Not to mention you can get away with alot by just saying the ship is new and experimental. Keep the Kelvin Universe uniforms and you got a winner.
Jason
Oh, you can make TOS sets and technology look fantastic with modern set design ideas. Enterprise came close and recreated the bridge and other parts of the Constitution-class Defiant in a way that made the old 1960s Matt Jefferies concepts seem almost fresh, but with the success of the Kelvin timeline films and the studio having severed almost all ties with the team that helmed the B&B era of the franchise it was never going to happen.
Are the Shenzhou and Discovery how I'd have designed them? Hell, no. That said, I like a lot of what I see and I can retcon the look into the Pike era of the TOS period with my creativity. If a fan can't do some creative retconning with their minds and find a way to fit the new look into the established Prime timeline then they need more practice.
We've had to do it before, folks. This isn't really all that different.
Are the Shenzhou and Discovery how I'd have designed them? Hell, no. That said, I like a lot of what I see and I can retcon the look into the Pike era of the TOS period with my creativity. If a fan can't do some creative retconning with their minds and find a way to fit the new look into the established Prime timeline then they need more practice.
We've had to do it before, folks. This isn't really all that different.
I think the hardest part for me in retconning it is how close the setting is to "TOS." With "TOS" and "TNG" you had a 80 year gap and a equally long distance between "Enterprise" and "TOS." Well that and recasting important characters but that to me isn't so much a problem if you stay away from series regulars and you don't do it to much.
With that said I also have enjoyed what I have seen except for the Klingons. I would have wished any alterations would have been more minimal. New uniforms,ships and weapons would be cool to change. I liked the ridges and hair though they use to have and I also like the culture though I would like more Martock style guys who are more than just warriors but you also see new angles to their culture. Fewer references to Gagh and Targs would also be welcome.
Jason
I'm sorry, Uniderth, but that's bullshit, plain and simple. Nobody's going to be doing a TV show exactly as it was in the 1960's or any other past era just to suit you and other Baby BoomereGeneration X'ers with a massive hard of for TOS. AS said by others here, no TV producer/writer/showrunner/ set designer worth their salt is going to do that to please people like you. The only reason you want this is because you can't concieve of Star Trek being any way but what it was in the 1960's plot wise, setting wise, or design wise, so any version based on the original series must look exactly like the original series, or it's shit.
The thing is, Uniderth, NOBODY said you have to see the current series; you can watch the originals until your eyes fall out or you need Viseine to get the red out of them for binge watching said older shows. But you don't have the right to be offered a complete reproduction of the original series or any of the follow-ups just because 'mah nostalgia' and 'mah canon' and 'mah childhood'. The casual viewers aren't going to watch that show, the new Trekfans (which the show and franchises needs to sustain it) won't watch that show, and many other Trekfans of the same age range BESIDES YOU and people like you aren't going to watch it either; they've had their appities whetted by the look/design of the recent movies, and they want and expect something similar in this new TV series, or it WILL fail right out of the orbital spacedock. That's the reality that has to be faced, that's how things are, and that's what ytou and others like you trapped in the past of the franchise unvilling to progress for one reason or another will have to deal with. If not, then there's all of the original shows on DVD and Blu-Ray for you to watch.
As much as it displeased me to say so, I'm a Millennial.
I love that you know exactly how audiences will react to a show that has never been produced. Or that you know exactly how said show would be made. Look all I'm looking for is a little effort for consistency. You wanna make a show choc-full of greeblies and touch screens, then fine, do it in an era of Trek that has those. But coming in and "reimagining," it is just doing disservice to the original material. This debate goes around and around and it just wastes everyone's time. I don't accept JJTrek, Enterprise, and probably Discovery as part of Star Trek. I just want some effort for consistency. That's my view. The End.
uniderth may be a Millennial, but this is still going over the line. The post, not the poster.
Ever watched a movie called Star Trek The Motion Picture, followed by Star Trek The Wrath of Khan? They look exactly the same..... right?
If I were you, today would not be the day to quit smoking, drinking, taking amphetamines, or sniffing glue.
Is it possible to do a "pure" TOS prequel in the modern era of TV? Yes, in that it's been demonstrated that the TOS aesthetic can be faithfully replicated by a modern production, whether it's New Voyages or Continues, or the Defiant sets for ENT.
The real question is "Should one be done?", and I think the answer is "No." The TOS aesthetic, and frankly all of Star Trek, is heavily influenced by the era in which it's produced. TOS is a hypothetical view of the future from the vantage point of the mid-to-late 60s. TNG, especially in its' early years, is both a product of and a response to, the culture of the 1980s.
What's the point I'm trying to make? The producers of DSC should strive to make the best possible Star Trek series they can. This does not necessarily mean that they should be totally beholden to the TOS aesthetic, because replication of that aesthetic is not in itself a solid indicator of the series' overall quality. A show can look great and be absolutely terrible otherwise.
Too many fans hold to the mistaken belief that the producers don't care of Star Trek or the fans if they don't perfectly adhere to what comes before. What those fans fail to realize is that the producers do care, but they don't care the same way the fans do. That is, the producers have a different set of considerations they must regard than the fans. The producers have to make decisions based on time, budget, storytelling issues, actors, network/studio notes, all of which are working toward creating a product meant to reach the broadest possible audience. The fans, on the other hand, only really have to consider the finished product (although we'll pick any scrap of information apart just to demonstrate that the producers are screwing it all up).
The real question is "Should one be done?", and I think the answer is "No." The TOS aesthetic, and frankly all of Star Trek, is heavily influenced by the era in which it's produced. TOS is a hypothetical view of the future from the vantage point of the mid-to-late 60s. TNG, especially in its' early years, is both a product of and a response to, the culture of the 1980s.
What's the point I'm trying to make? The producers of DSC should strive to make the best possible Star Trek series they can. This does not necessarily mean that they should be totally beholden to the TOS aesthetic, because replication of that aesthetic is not in itself a solid indicator of the series' overall quality. A show can look great and be absolutely terrible otherwise.
Too many fans hold to the mistaken belief that the producers don't care of Star Trek or the fans if they don't perfectly adhere to what comes before. What those fans fail to realize is that the producers do care, but they don't care the same way the fans do. That is, the producers have a different set of considerations they must regard than the fans. The producers have to make decisions based on time, budget, storytelling issues, actors, network/studio notes, all of which are working toward creating a product meant to reach the broadest possible audience. The fans, on the other hand, only really have to consider the finished product (although we'll pick any scrap of information apart just to demonstrate that the producers are screwing it all up).
If you say one negative word about the disco belt buckles in the former I will blast Shaun Cassidy's song in this forum. Some slander will not be tolerated.
While a "true" prequel to TOS - ignoring real life (no wi-fi, no touchscreens, tablets that hold one document at a time etc) and strictly imagining backwards from the 1960's-imagined TOS universe - would be fun for die-hard fans, I'm not sure it'd work as a commercial product.
In one scene, Scotty is sitting in a communal room read a technical manual using one of the triangle sided "padds," in TOS I don't think the padds were restricted to a single document.
We certainly never saw anyone's desk littered with a half-dozen of the things.
The last thing I want to see is a Trek series where the Enterprise/Discovery is trying to boost its wi-fi signal.
Where did you get that? It's a tablet, not an Etch-A-Sketch.
I think, with what we see a century later, we kind of have to.
It's a TNG/DS9/Voyager thing. Stacks of PADDs on desks, used (by technologically illiterate producers?) to depict heavy reading/paperwork. And that's in a world a century more advanced than TOS!
Similar threads
