What has the new series done to ruin Star Trek this time?

[Greg Cox]

If they wanna say the Connie retroactively now looks like the SNW/DSC Connie, sure go ahead. If they wanna use the TOS version, equally go ahead. But at least put the flag in the ground and say ‘this is what it is now’.

I don't know. I don't think it's necessary to pin down one specific visual over all others. Is the third movie set in a different "universe" or "timeline" just because Saavik didn't look exactly like Kirstie Alley anymore?

Of course not. Audiences suspended their disbelief as audiences have done for as long as theater has existed, even if the cast or art direction aren't 100% identical to other productions. As long as the ship is recognizably the Enterprise -- saucer, twin nacelles, etc -- we can read it as the same Enterprise, the same way we accepted that it was the same Saavik, just played by a different actress.

Granted, this may be my comic-book background speaking. Different artists draw Batman differently. Kelly Jones's Batman does not look exactly like Neal Adam's Batman or Gene Colan's Batman, etc. But that doesn't mean only one look is "canon" or that we're in a new "timeline" every time a different artist draws Batman.

Just different artistic interpretations.

Same with the Enterprise, Klingons, Kirk, Spock, etc.

 

[BillJ]

I don't know. I don't think it's necessary to pin down one specific visual over all others. Is the third movie set in a different "universe" or "timeline" just because Saavik didn't look exactly like Kirstie Alley anymore?

Problem being, it was a forced change due to contract negotiations. Changing the Enterprise was a choice.

 

[fireproof78]

I don't know. I don't think it's necessary to pin down one specific visual over all others. Is the third movie set in a different "universe" or "timeline" just because Saavik didn't look exactly like Kirstie Alley anymore?

Of course not. Audiences suspended their disbelief as audiences have done for as long as theater has existed, even if the cast or art direction aren't 100% identical to other productions. As long as the ship is recognizably the Enterprise -- saucer, twin nacelles, etc -- we can read it as the same Enterprise, the same way we accepted that it was the same Saavik, just played by a different actress.

Granted, this may be my comic-book background speaking. Different artists draw Batman differently. Kelly Jones's Batman does not look exactly like Neal Adam's Batman or Gene Colan's Batman, etc. But that doesn't mean only one look is "canon" or that we're in a new "timeline" every time a different artist draws Batman.

Just different artistic interpretations.

Same with the Enterprise, Klingons, Kirk, Spock, etc.

This is my theater background talking and I go "Damn straight!"

 

[Greg Cox]

Problem being, it was a forced change due to contract negotiations. Changing the Enterprise was a choice.

But regardless of the reason. The basic principle is the same. Audiences know they're watching a movie or TV episode. We make allowances for cast changes, changes in production values, the occasional blooper, etc.


Not every change in casting or art direction needs to be taken literally, let alone as proof that "ohmigod, it's completely different timeline!"


Sometimes a new starship model is just a new starship model.

 

[HotRod]

I don't know. I don't think it's necessary to pin down one specific visual over all others. Is the third movie set in a different "universe" or "timeline" just because Saavik didn't look exactly like Kirstie Alley anymore?

Of course not. Audiences suspended their disbelief as audiences have done for as long as theater has existed, even if the cast or art direction aren't 100% identical to other productions. As long as the ship is recognizably the Enterprise -- saucer, twin nacelles, etc -- we can read it as the same Enterprise, the same way we accepted that it was the same Saavik, just played by a different actress.

Granted, this may be my comic-book background speaking. Different artists draw Batman differently. Kelly Jones's Batman does not look exactly like Neal Adam's Batman or Gene Colan's Batman, etc. But that doesn't mean only one look is "canon" or that we're in a new "timeline" every time a different artist draws Batman.

Just different artistic interpretations.

Same with the Enterprise, Klingons, Kirk, Spock, etc.

This is one one of the best written explanations on the matter that I've read. Who'd have thought it would take an accomplished author to explain it so perfectly? Thank you.

 

[BillJ]

Not every change in casting or art direction needs to be taken literally, let alone as proof that "ohmigod, it's completely different timeline!"

I think for most, it is far more than the visual changes that have them thinking alternate timelines. It is a piece of the puzzle, but there's more to it. YMMV.

 

[Dukhat]

Problem being, it was a forced change due to contract negotiations. Changing the Enterprise was a choice.

Not only that, but choosing to start out a show (namely, PIC) by showing the DSC Enterprise and then showing a TOS Connie by the third season makes me think that these showrunners simply don't know how to explain the visual disconnect between the series. There's more evidence of that with the second season of Prodigy where they try to shoehorn in the reasons why the continuity wasn't quite right between it and PIC.

 

[Dukhat]

I think for most, it is far more than the visual changes that have them thinking alternate timelines. It is a piece of the puzzle, but there's more to it. YMMV.

Yes, there are fundamental differences between Desilu Trek and CBS Trek, more than just how things look or who's playing what part.

 

[Greg Cox]

Not only that, but choosing to start out a show (namely, PIC) by showing the DSC Enterprise and then showing a TOS Connie by the third season makes me think that these showrunners simply don't know how to explain the visual disconnect between the series. There's more evidence of that with the second season of Prodigy where they try to shoehorn in the reasons why the continuity wasn't quite right between it and PIC.

See, I don't see a problem there. Again, it's like reading two different Batman comics, drawn by two different artists. Doesn't mean they're set in different universes. It's just different artists's interpretations, separated by a few years.

Another weird analogy: Take the old Hammer Horror DRACULA movies. Does Dracula's castle look identical in every movie, even though there's a (loose) continuity flowing from film to film? Not at all, but that didn't seem to bother movie audiences back in the day. Nobody fretted about whether DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE was "canon" or in the "same universe" as DRACULA, PRINCE OF DARKNESS just because a drawbridge or turrett was in the wrong place or whatever.

Why can't we just approach the Enterprise models the same way?

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon, I'm not sure when audiences decided to take all this genre stuff quite so literally, and expecting every series to maintain some sort of seamless "canon" at all costs.

Remember when we just watched this stuff for fun?

 

[fireproof78]

Remember when we just watched this stuff for fun?

At the risk of channeling my inner curmudgeon, I'm not sure when audiences decided to take all this genre stuff quite so literally, and expecting every series to maintain some sort of seamless "canon" at all costs.

I like you and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[Dukhat]

Remember when we just watched this stuff for fun?

Well, that was before the TrekBBS came along and ruined Star Trek for all of us.

 

[Citiprime]

Problem being, it was a forced change due to contract negotiations. Changing the Enterprise was a choice.

Another aspect to this is that you have TOS-TNG-DS9-VOY-ENT that roughly agree on a visual language, and with some exceptions tend to fit together in tone. None of the Berman era series contradict what the TOS/Movie Enterprise looked like or try to go back and say "actually" it didn't look like that, it was completely different and looked like (whatever was in style for the 1990s) and updated it for 90s TV.

They didn't do that. They accepted the past of the show as being its past, in all its technicolor glory.

If you then create new shows where you change the visual aesthetic. If you put in new actors playing Kirk, Spock, Uhura, Scotty, etc. If you rewrite events that occurred in that past where things in certain episodes from TOS are now kind of fuzzy, whether it be Khan's origin or the Xenomorph Gorn in SNW. If you make a number of changes to make things different, what's wrong with owning those differences and saying it's different?

This is the part that makes no sense to me. I have no problem with creatives wanting to put their own spin on Star Trek, and by all means go in whatever direction you want with it. The problem for me is when you tell me that everything you're doing fits with everything else in canon, when it clearly doesn't and they could save themselves so much trouble by just saying: "Hey we're doing our own thing with these ideas, it's not the same as what came before, but we're gonna do our best version of Star Trek."

I would accept that. I would like to believe the vast majority of fans would accept it. Because, otherwise, you basically have something similar to Dune, where there's the books Frank Herbert wrote, and then there's the other ones. They're all supposed to be connected, but the differences in the ones Herbert didn't write stick out, and that allows people to divide that story into a part they recognize and one they don't.

 

[Dukhat]

None of the Berman era series contradict what the TOS/Movie Enterprise looked like or try to go back and say "actually" it didn't look like that, it was completely different and looked like (whatever was in style for the 1990s) and updated it for 90s TV.

They didn't do that. They accepted the past of the show as being its past, in all its technicolor glory.

To be accurate, Roddenberry did not want TNG to be associated with TOS or the films (and did in fact state that TOS was not how those events actually unfolded), but then went on to make creative decisions which all but cemented the relationship between them. Go figure, Gene.

 

[Citiprime]

To be accurate, Roddenberry did not want TNG to be associated with TOS or the films (and did in fact state that TOS was not how those events actually unfolded), but then went on to make creative decisions which all but cemented the relationship between them. Go figure, Gene.

That went out the window in Episode 3 ("The Naked Now").

 

[Nerys Myk]

That went out the window in Episode 3 ("The Naked Now").

Shouldn't that graphic show the version from TOS?

 

[Dukhat]

That went out the window in Episode 3 ("The Naked Now").

Actually it went out the window with DeForest Kelley's cameo.

 

[Citiprime]

Shouldn't that graphic show version from TOS?

It now does in the TNG HD remaster.

 

[Dukhat]

I think he knew that. Hence the winky smiley.

 

[Nerys Myk]

That remaster kind of sucks in a like sore thumb sort of way.

 

[cooleddie74]

I like it, though. The TMP Refit being in there starting in 1987 never looked right and distracted me from an otherwise cool moment referencing Kirk and TOS.