Spoilers What does SNW get right that DSC and PIC got wrong??
- Thread starter ED-209
- Start date
I promise you that in 100 years, 99.999% of the population of the planet won't care or notice the differences between the two.
It will still be "The Star Trek Enterprise."
Off the top of my head, I can think of several remakes that are vastly superior to their "classic" originals.
Dune
The Thing
The Fly
The Mummy
Scarface
Planet of the Apes
Invasion of the Body Snachers
Dawn of the Dead
It
Ocean's Eleven
The Blob
The list goes on.
Last edited:
I promise you that in 100 years, 99.999% of the population of the planet won't care or notice the differences between the two.
It will still be "The Star Trek Enterprise."
Off the top of my head, I can think of several remakes that are vastly superior to their "classic" originals.
Dune
The Thing
The Fly
The Mummy
Scarface
Planet of the Apes
Invasion of the Body Snachers
Dawn of the Dead
It
Ocean's Eleven
The Blob
The list goes on.
Well, 99.999% of people don’t know the difference between the Abramsprise, the Discoprise, or the TOS Enterprise. But none of those people post here, so it’s a nonsequitor.
And I would be hard-pressed to debate you on the superiority of many of those remade films in your list.
Hell, I don’t care now.
I don't care about all the '50s crap. The '50s are my least favorite decade.
But these two stuck out to me...
Yes. The 2021 Dune is far superior to the 1984 Dune. It's not even close.
On the other hand. I haven't seen the new Planet of the Apes. Is it really, actually better than the 1968 original? Serious question. Not the Internet Argument posturing. I'm asking as someone who watches movies. I heard it's good. I wasn't aware of it being that good. If I knew it was, I wouldn't have put it on the back-burner. It's one of those films I want to see, but I've never actually gotten around to putting it on.
But these two stuck out to me...
Yes. The 2021 Dune is far superior to the 1984 Dune. It's not even close.
On the other hand. I haven't seen the new Planet of the Apes. Is it really, actually better than the 1968 original? Serious question. Not the Internet Argument posturing. I'm asking as someone who watches movies. I heard it's good. I wasn't aware of it being that good. If I knew it was, I wouldn't have put it on the back-burner. It's one of those films I want to see, but I've never actually gotten around to putting it on.
I would argue that indeed, the newer trilogy is vastly superior to the films of the 60's and 70's. What Andy Serkis managed to bring out of the character of Ceasar was simply astounding in my opinion.
Thanks! The new Planet of the Apes trilogy just moved up, way up, on my "To Watch" List.
I have a soft spot for Conquest of the Planet of the Apes but, overall, I don't think the sequels from the '70s were really that good. But I do hold the first film in very high regard. It's one of my Top 10 Favorite Films.
The first film, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, is easily the weakest of the trilogy while still containing some very powerful moments.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a modern masterpiece, with probably the Andy Serkis' best performance, and that's saying something.
War for the Planet of the Apes, while not as good as "Dawn", is still a stellar film with another great performance from Serkis, among others.
Last edited:
Turning this back on topic, one good thing has come out having of DSC, PIC, and SNW all starting within such a relatively short span of time. Unlike when it was just DSC by itself, now it's easier to tell who just wanted something different from someone who doesn't like any of these series and won't be happy until it looks, sounds, and feels like an episode from 1993.
You know, the 1939 Wizard of Oz fits that description, being the first color (and sound) adaptation after the 1910 and 1925 versions.
The new Apes movies are good, but they're good in a different way than the '68 original. The new movies tell a pretty good story about the collapse of society and the rise of a new one. The original film is more about allegories for social issues that you see play out through Taylor's treatment within the ape society (e.g., the inability of scientific truth to exist in a system that places religious doctrine as having primacy).
One of the primary writers who adapted Pierre Boulle's novel into the original film was Rod Serling, and the '68 film really functions as a 2-hour Twilight Zone episode, with his style of social commentary and twist (i.e., I would argue it's still one of the best movie endings ever, when I was a kid it gave me chills the first time I saw it).
The reasons why those movies replaced the originals in the collective consciousness is because they were considered "vastly superior" to the originals on some quality level. Will SNW be considered "vastly superior" to TOS by Trek fans in the future to the point that this is the Enterprise and versions of Kirk, Spock, Uhura, etc., they think of when people say Star Trek?
The jury is still out on that.
I won't deny there's people who get hung up on how things look and a bunch of other things that are arguably superficial. BUT... I think there's also another way of framing your dichotomy.
Because another way of saying it is that it's now also easier to see who doesn't really care about retconning anything Star Trek pre-2009, and is willing to write it off wholesale to have something new as long as its called "Star Trek," and those that appreciate the continuity and the connections within a nearly 60-year old shared universe and legitimately do not understand why some of the choices made by those in charge were necessary (e.g., Why change the Klingons in Discovery? Why call the xenomorph-Gorn the Gorn instead of creating something new? Why create continuity questions that are distractions from the good things in these episodes?, etc.)
The Klingons were trying to fix the Augment Virus and the Disco Klingons were an over-correction. Eventually, they got it right.
I don't like either version of the Gorn. The TOS Gorn looked silly even for TOS. The SNW Gorn are a rip-off of the Xenomorph and I'm a huge fan of the Alien Films. Well, at least the first four and Prometheus, but anyway... Not something I look upon favorably. I don't know. Probably different species of Gorn. The Xenomorph Gorn could be slaves? I'm not really married to this idea.
I agree with that. How upside down everything is -- Taylor's exact words -- fits The Twilight Zone like a glove.
The ending was pitch-perfect. I first saw it on TV when I was 16 and, fortunately, none of the film had been spoiled for me. I lucked out in that regard.
Something I have to add.
In the case of the Gorn, and SNW changing them... why I would I fight to keep them the way they were if I didn't like how they looked to begin with? If I did that, I'd be having a Canon Fight just to have a Canon Fight. Same for the other way around. I'm not going to defend the SNW Gorn as some awesome great thing, when I clearly don't think so. But I won't bludgeon the issue to death every time they make an appearance. As far as I'm concerned, "What's done is done." Despite how they look in SNW, is the rest of the episode around them any good? That's what I look for. Just like in "Arena". I think the Gorn looked ridiculous, but the story was top-notch.
... I just wish they didn't show that same clip with Kirk fighting the Gorn every fucking time they have someone in something else watching an episode of Star Trek! I swear that's what a lot of people think Star Trek is really like in general. William Shatner fighting some lizard guy.
In the case of the Gorn, and SNW changing them... why I would I fight to keep them the way they were if I didn't like how they looked to begin with? If I did that, I'd be having a Canon Fight just to have a Canon Fight. Same for the other way around. I'm not going to defend the SNW Gorn as some awesome great thing, when I clearly don't think so. But I won't bludgeon the issue to death every time they make an appearance. As far as I'm concerned, "What's done is done." Despite how they look in SNW, is the rest of the episode around them any good? That's what I look for. Just like in "Arena". I think the Gorn looked ridiculous, but the story was top-notch.
... I just wish they didn't show that same clip with Kirk fighting the Gorn every fucking time they have someone in something else watching an episode of Star Trek! I swear that's what a lot of people think Star Trek is really like in general. William Shatner fighting some lizard guy.
Now that's a fix I want to get. It gives you an extra penis!
The thing is, I don't think anyone really had any issue with the rubber suit to this extent until now, when they're comparing it to SNW after a span of 55+ years of advances in television production values. Now, all of a sudden, it's a problem. Because, hey, it was complete shit when Farscape did it, amirite? Yeah, fuck that Jim Henson guy and all his fake-looking puppets and rubber aliens. Why didn't he make CGI xenomorph ripoffs like the pros?
And it's not like I was actually expecting a guy in a rubber suit in SNW. I just wasn't expecting Jurassic Park velociraptors with FTL technology and space suits.
The original POTA is also one of my all-time favorite films.
I never really thought about it too much and it didn't really come up much in topics on this board.
I'm 100% positive it came up in the ENT Forum in 2005, but that wasn't and isn't my lane. If I had to guess, I'd say most of the people didn't have an issue with how the Gorn looked in "In a Mirror, Darkly".
.
.
.
EDITED TO ADD: Wait, I do mention them. In 2018. There was a thread, where I did a recap of the "In the Mirror Darkly" two-parter.
Spoilers - General Disco Chat Thread | Page 14 | The Trek BBS
Here's what I said on August 29th, 2018:
Damn. I didn't pull any punches.
And I'm probably sure that most people felt the way you did. But to use the POTA analogy, the makeup, rubber prostheses, and the overall way the actors moved in their costumes in the original POTA was state-of-the-art for its time. When Tim Burton made his film, the makeup was state-of-the-art for its time, and it looked great. And while I've only seen the first of the new POTA films, the CGI for that was state-of-the-art for its time, and it looked good too. And it was made only ten years after Burton's.
My point? You can still have makeup, rubber suits, and actors that make a non-human character believable. Heck, I think Yoda in TESB was far more effective than the CGI version in the prequels.
Last edited:
This sounds like a typical "real Star Trek fan" argument. "NuTrek" fans simply must not care about the past. It's the "TruFans" that are the real fans because they can tell you the exact brand of paint that was used by Matt Jefferies on the port Nacelle in 1964. Or what brand of cigar Gene Coon loved to smoke.
Yoda is TESB was more believable than whatever nightmare fuel they used in TLJ for Yoda.
I happen to know, anecdotally, that this is not the case. Friends of mine did a review talking Star Trek and express their frustration, to put it mildly, with the effects and combat. This was 15+ years ago, so before SNW. Certainly was not considered a highlight of an episode by that group.
That depended greatly on the scene. There were a couple lines that don't quite match up with the lines, like "You will be." Limits of puppeteering, but both work in some places, work less in the others.
That's because they got references wrong. The original puppet had degraded to a certain point and they attempted to recreate it, and it didn't quite get it right.
Just because we accept changes doesn't mean we don't care. Rather black and white extremist viewpoint on who cares and doesn't care as Trek fans.
This is damn frustrating to read, again, assuming those who are willing to accept changes as being less caring of Star Trek.
Similar threads
