What's all due respect, that's patently absurd.You took the words out of my mouth. All these arguments seem predicated on the idea that somehow "Star Trek" = Berman-era Trek, as though that is the gold standard to which all past and present Treks must be compared, and that its art direction and aesthetic and approach to continuity defines the franchise.
I confess this OG Trekkie always bristles at this notion, which one too often runs into these days. There was Star Trek before the TNG era and there will yet more Treks in the future.
One might as well argue that all future Bond movies need to be consistent, in terms of tone and technology and art direction, to the Roger Moore movies.
I cited- not even all of Berman era Star Trek, because Enterprise is part of the problem, not the solution- the TNG-through-VOY run As an example in which 15 years of stories maintained basic visual continuity without stifling creativity and storytelling in response to an earlier claim some pages back. And also, as a run in which consistently, when the TOS era was revisited, it looked like the TOS era.
Because yes, if indeed a future bond movie is set in the '70s, I do expect it to match the technology - not the tone and art direction - but also the costuming, clothes, and hairstyles, on the Roger Moore films. Because that's how the '70s looked. If someone takes it upon themselves to make a movie set in the '70s, I don't expect them to upgrade all of the landlines to smartphones, or completely redesign all over the cars to look like 2010 hyundais, and call it a visual reboot because 'car technology has advanced so much in the real world since then that you can't expect them to make it look like those old fashioned cars.' :-)
Perhaps the discussion has meandered enough that the original point was simply missed, rather than being deliberately misrepresented and charictured as it appears to be? But the entire point was that throughout the history of Star Trek - before Discovery - any revisit to the previously established TOS era maintained the recognizable designs of the TOS era.
Not that every Star Trek needed to look like TOS. Not that every Star Trek needed to maintain the same visual style. But that - to use the Roger Moore era movies comparison - when a revisited a historical period, it actually used the correct trappings of that historical period instead of redesigning them. That's the only standard which I'm appealing. Take those sets and light them differently. Swoop the camera all around and have a bowl with your CGI. Cinematographize however you like. Design new alien species! Tell stories serialized, or however you want to, completely different from the Berman era! None of those things have been taken issue here.
Only the practice of creating a prequel - setting a story in a previously established, previously revisited era, and yet completely redesigning that era when every past visitation did not do so. Which again, is just like making a film historical today. If you make a movie set in the forties, the cars and clothes and building interiors and exteriors and haircuts and everything else should look like those in the 40s. That's the responsibility you assume when you said a movie in the '40s. I don't think there's anything especially unreasonable about that, and references to the Berman era shows were nothing more than illustrations that it had been successfully done before without hampering anything numerous times.
Again, with all due respect, if you're going to engage with the arguments please do so in an intellectually honest manner. This response is most definitively not that. But again, perhaps only by mistake, since the original thesis has been buried pages back now. So I've restated it. And I'm happy to let it drop. I'm just not happy to be straw manned.
