Two words: Borg. Trill.
What's the worst non-canon decision in the history of Trek?
- Thread starter F. King Daniel
- Start date
Two words: Borg. Trill.
Okay, granted- the look of both species developed. The latter for purely non-technical, aesthetic reasons. But I'm still going to stick with 'the exceptions that prove the rule.' They do stand out as having undergone alteration- but largely in contrast to the many other species, ships, etc. that did not. And even in the case of the Borg, the makeup underwent refinement and improvement, a design evolution- not a total redesign from scratch.
So, while I concede that this is not a 'no exceptions' rule, it is also not an 'everything is an exception, changing everything is fair game' standard in the way the prequel series treat it.
I do recall noticing that Picard wore the modern Borg gear in the First Contact flashbacks.
It wasn't just the look of the Borg that changed. The Borg in "Q Who" had no interest in assimilating people, just technology, because they reproduced on their own. Funny that Q had no idea, when he was blowing Picard's mind with this far distant threat that humanity wasn't ready for, that the Hansen family had already met them, and so had the crew of Archer's Enterprise. You can argue that we just learned more about the Borg over the years, but in the beginning they didn't need a speaker, they didn't need a queen, they only assimilated technology. Every major Borg story was a retcon of everything that came before, not just a bit of new information.
As for the Trill... they were originally very secretive and wouldn't use transporters. And yet I never got the impression from the DS9 stories about Dax's previous hosts that the existence of the symbionts had been a big secret. They didn't just look different, their history changed.
If all I wanted to talk about was changes in makeup in pre-2009 or pre-2017 Trek, I'd just mention the Andorians, who looked different every time they appeared until Enterprise settled on a consistent look. And the Klingons. The 1979 TMP Klingons are noticeably different from the 1989 Final Frontier Klingons. Heck, Worf's look changed in the second season of TNG.
As for the Trill... they were originally very secretive and wouldn't use transporters. And yet I never got the impression from the DS9 stories about Dax's previous hosts that the existence of the symbionts had been a big secret. They didn't just look different, their history changed.
If all I wanted to talk about was changes in makeup in pre-2009 or pre-2017 Trek, I'd just mention the Andorians, who looked different every time they appeared until Enterprise settled on a consistent look. And the Klingons. The 1979 TMP Klingons are noticeably different from the 1989 Final Frontier Klingons. Heck, Worf's look changed in the second season of TNG.
Yep. They also based it on the (IMO more compelling) Part I make-up, rather than the Part II version with the larger facial implant that goes all the way around his eye. And, on the topic, we did see Picard getting even more assimilated in Part II, so that's a case where there was a story reason given for a changed appearance.
I do wish the more modern productions had stuck with the FC-style being a retcon and not an in-universe change, showing FC-Locutus and an FC-ized file photo of Hugh in PIC, but apparently we've reached the point where TPTB and production designers are no longer nostalgic for TOS visually, are barely nostalgic for the style of the TOS movies, are firmly nostalgic for TNG's look, and are not yet nostalgic for the TNG movies, DS9, and VGR production design.
Again, granted that both Borg and Trill underwent a change from their first appearance to their subsequent 'normal'. The Cardassians lost those weird little beards and helmets, too. That's very different from completely remaking a well-established species or entity.
Likewise, I include Archer's encounters on the 'problem' side of the divide, not the 15 years of continuity I cited; I was just as vociferous when those episodes were coming out. :-)
As regards Klingons and Andorians, sure; there was incremental change in seasons or for new individuals (Chang looked different from the norm, for instance). That doesn't mean a complete reinvention of the species, however. That Worf's makeup style underwent revision between seasons of TNG, for instance, doesn't mean it ever left the Klingons 'family' or general look; it is apples and oranges, to, say, redesigning the TOS Enterprise exteriors, interiors, and technology.
There are developments between seasons- makeups shift, sets are embellished and redesigned. In Darwinian terms, this is micro-evolution; the altering of traits within a species. :-) I talking macro-evolurion, the complete change from one species to another. :-). In short, I would suggest it's disingenuous to compare the redesign of the observation lounge from.seasons 1 to 2, or the shift in Klingon makeup, or even new species who changed from their first appearance (but remained consistent after that) with the alteration of long-established, repeatedly-reinfiorced and 'settled' visual or factual continuity.
Likewise, I include Archer's encounters on the 'problem' side of the divide, not the 15 years of continuity I cited; I was just as vociferous when those episodes were coming out. :-)
As regards Klingons and Andorians, sure; there was incremental change in seasons or for new individuals (Chang looked different from the norm, for instance). That doesn't mean a complete reinvention of the species, however. That Worf's makeup style underwent revision between seasons of TNG, for instance, doesn't mean it ever left the Klingons 'family' or general look; it is apples and oranges, to, say, redesigning the TOS Enterprise exteriors, interiors, and technology.
There are developments between seasons- makeups shift, sets are embellished and redesigned. In Darwinian terms, this is micro-evolution; the altering of traits within a species. :-) I talking macro-evolurion, the complete change from one species to another. :-). In short, I would suggest it's disingenuous to compare the redesign of the observation lounge from.seasons 1 to 2, or the shift in Klingon makeup, or even new species who changed from their first appearance (but remained consistent after that) with the alteration of long-established, repeatedly-reinfiorced and 'settled' visual or factual continuity.
The Borg were inconsistent for many years. Most of the new developments contradicted what we knew rather than adding to it.
I think the Andorian appearances in TOS were pretty consistent with each other. It was the Tellarite makeup where the eyes or hands were different every time. TAS Andorian design was consistent too aside from skin color.
And of course, the "consistent" look didn't outlast ENT, since the modern shows have used a different design.
The TMP Klingons are unlike any subsequent design. ST III's Burman Studio introduced the idea of individualized bony forehead plates, which was adopted in distinct ways by Michael Westmore for the shows (adding a ridged nose and abandoning gender dimorphism after a failed attempt in "Hide and Q") and Richard Snell for ST 4-6 (using thinner forehead plates and keeping the understated female ridges).
Not to mention that TOS season 2 Klingons lacked the green-brown pancake makeup and bifurcated eyebrows used in seasons 1 & 3, so even that was a difference.
They pretty much retconed the Borg into always looking like did in First Contact, pretty much every time we saw the Borg after FC, including flashbacks, they were always FC style Borg.
Are you mad that they changed thing at all, or is it just that you think went to far with the way they changed things?
Because there was absolutely no way they were going to make a big budge, modern streaming series that looked like it was made in the '60s. And anybody who honestly thought that was a possibility was clearly blinded by nostalgia and wasn't really thinking about they were going to approch shows like Strange New Worlds or Discovery. Now, I can see where the argument could be made that they never should have made this shows in the first place so this wouldn't be an issue, but once we knew they were it was obvious this was going to happen.
Well, that's the thing. I hear the idea of a big budget modern TV show, and things looking like it they were made in the '60s, thrown around a lot. Now I know that television is not the same as it was in past decades, so I understand that argument to a degree. But my point has always been that TNG, DS9, Voyager, and Enterprise were also big budget and modern for their times. They had also had advanced production technology compared to the original series. But each of them maintained the look of the original Enterprise and went to the trouble of recreating it. So to that degree, the, 'well technology has advanced, it's a modern show, you can't expect in this day and age...' argument falls flat to me, because it's already been disproven by numerous other series in the franchise. (Although again, I do see a difference between syndicated network television of the '90s and prestige format television of the 2010s, in spite of a preference for the former, so I do at least see where that portion of the argument can differ from the previous examples.)
Regardless, I think what bothers me is just the seeming arrogance, in which the show seemed to feel free to redefine everything. The Enterprise. The Klingon makeup. The technology. All of it. (Some of these being trends that Enterprise had already started that I had a problem with then, too.) The basic concept of a 'visual reboot,' that there simply was no visual cannon to be beholden to at all, is the idea that bothers me.
Deciding to change some things up, I can understand. Saying 'we are fudging the rule a few times for production's sake,' I get (like the lack of birds on the Romulan ships in Enterprise due to studio interference). Saying there is no rule at all, That's what bothers me. Just the idea of complete freedom, by throwing out the phrase 'visual reboot,' to ignore the consistent precedent set by 50 years of Trek - in the case of ship and set designs, and the general (though admittedly, as we've discussed here, not perfect) consistencies on makeup and the like (primarily in the area of Klingons) plus basic items of continuity (The Tholian Web established there was never a mutiny on a federation starship, for instance; literally episode 1 of Discovery begins with a mutiny and make its character the most famous high-profile mutineer in Starfleet history that everyone has heard of).
And yes, you basically hit the nail on the head at the end there. In my view, a prequel is inherently parasitic. It's entire purpose is to leach off the popularity of a pre-existing entity and try and grab its audience and nostalgia and the like. In my mind, that establishes a moral responsibility to actually be beholden to the thing that you are leaching off of for your popularity. A prequel is by definition tied to a pre-existing thing, it bears the responsibility of fidelity to that pre-existing thing to which it owes it's very existence. If you don't want to be beholden to old sets and designs and continuity- if you think they're outdated or old-fashioned or whatever- that's fine. Just don't make a prequel. But if you do, have the integrity to actually play by the rules that you yourself chose to assume. Creating a prequel, and then saying there's a visual reboot so you can just do whatever you want, capitalizing off of the nostalgia or inbuilt audience of the original thing while showing absolutely no fidelity to it at the same time, is to me just an inherently wrong thing to do. It's arrogant and self-important, having your cake and eating it too, thinking that you both have the right to steal from the popularity of something iconic well disrespecting it at the same time. *Especially* If you are not the first entry in a long-running franchise to revisit an existing time, and every entry before you has gone to the trouble of accurately rebuilding or recreating that thing that you're revisiting. It just strikes me as, basically, "who the hell do you think you are?" Why do you suddenly get the right to break 50 years of tradition just because you decide you do- again, especially as you are a parasite that is trying to leach off of the popularity of the TOS era while still trying to be the first show in the franchise that completely reimagines the TOS era?
I don't know. I'm sure others will not feel the same way, and I accept that. But to me that is such absolute arrogance- I believe Admiral Clancy has a term for that kind of hubris ;-) - that it offends me.
Your mileage completely may vary. And I totally respect that. I'm just trying to answer the question of what makes me mad. And yeah, to me, the idea that you write yourself a blank check, a get out of jail free card, to just say, 'well I don't have to follow the rules that every previous series has, but I'm also still going to be a prequel that is trying to cash in on nostalgia,' just rubs me the wrong way more than I can say. I really feel like they shouldn't have done a prequel at all, and there really wasn't anything in the first season of Discovery that necessitated it to be set in the TOS era. But more just the attitude of not even saying 'sorry, there are some things we'll have to fudge, 'but just kind of strutting on to the scene and saying 'look, we just don't care and we're going to do our own thing anyway and it doesn't matter if every other series beforehand has done this, we somehow have the right to invent an unprecedented 'visual reboot' concept for the first time in franchise history because we say we do,' that's the major thing. That they didn't even pretend like there was any kind of obligation to fidelity, right out of the gate. Making some exceptions, doing some redesigns, that I get. But just striding right out of the gate and saying 'I'm too good for that, I was never even considering playing by those rules,' that bothers me.
...Now aren't you sorry you asked? :-) Sorry for the soapbox speech.
Last edited:
Except that they didn't take any extraordinary pains to recreate the look of the original, except in a few isolated cases (most notably, "Trials and Tribble-ations," where, as I understand it, they not only used 1960s makeup, textiles, and lighting, but thawed out and used vintage film stock, and shot it with vintage lenses, in order to match the archival footage as closely as possible, and canonically acknowledged that there was a difference between what became known as HemQuch and Quch'ha Klingons [albeit just by saying "we do not speak of it"]).
That they had to do that argues against the notion that they, in general, "maintained the look of the original Enterprise. As just one example, I'll note that in TNG, there was not a single control panel on the "D" with the semi-tactile "gumdrop" buttons of the original. Everything was flat touch-screens, albeit perhaps with the understanding that in-universe, some kind of low-energy force fields gave them tactility.
But why are we even discussing decisions made in finished, released episodes that, by definition, are canonical, in a thread about non-canon decisions?
With respect, I would disagree. They did indeed maintain the integrity of TOS - and TNG when they revisited TNG in the Enterprise finale, for that matter. In TNG, they built partial sets to match archive footage, sure. In deep space nine and Enterprise, they recreated sets - and yes, even though Enterprise was using fan film created sets, they did still construct some of their own such as the extension of the Jeffries tube - and in both cases, created extrapolations of the existing aesthetic for their new sets. In addition, the finale of Enterprise featured an exterior shot of the TOS Enterprise that had absolutely no connection archive footage. However they didn't opt for a redesign, they stuck with the original Enterprise just as we had seen it in TOS, TAS, and deep space nine as well as earlier in Enterprise. At a certain point, you can't write these off anymore, it becomes a clear and consistent pattern. And that's not even counting Enterprise accurately revisiting the TNG era, and VOY and Star Trek Beyond (briefly) accurately revisiting the movie era.
The clear and consistent principle is that when an era is revisited, it's aesthetic and technology is maintained. The fact that the TNG bridge was different from the TOS bridge is immaterial, that was not a revisit, it was an advancement 100 years into the future. That's perfectly fine. It's not trying to recreate an existing established era but creating its own. That is a completely separate issue. It has no bearing on the way that Star Trek has always treated the TOS era. In short, the maintained look of the TOS era *when they visited the TOS era*. Not that they always carry that look through in the future time periods, nor would there be any requirement for them to do so. Perhaps your counter argument was based on a misunderstanding of the statement being made there. (I did not succinctly restate it on this page at any point).
As for why we are still arguing this in this thread? I have no idea. The discussion just keeps on going, I don't even remember what it's spun out of. :-) At this point, it's just replies to replies. I've certainly well-stated my thesis by now, I'm happy to drop it.
Last edited:
I can understand why you focus on the Berman era as being so consistent, because if you include all of pre-2009 Star Trek, that level of consistency just isn't there. But pre-1987 Star Trek counts, too. Berman Trek is not all there is or all that matters.
Anyway, yeah, this does seem pretty far off-topic for the books area.
Well, that's basically a tautology, isn't it? Every creator interprets their subject differently. So it follows that a single creator's or creative team's output will be more consistent within itself than it will be with a different creator's approach to the subject. The Berman era was only so consistent in approach because it had so much consistency of staff over the years. Naturally, different creators and teams will bring their own distinct styles and imaginations to the work and depict it differently, just like new writers or artists on a comic book will use their own style rather than copy a predecessor's.
That's again, rather a disingenuous claim; before the 1987 era, a previous time period was not revisited. And the pre-1987 era has Klingon changes (the big one often brought up), but aside from that? Yeah, the consistency is there.
Look, I don't expect everyone to share my view on whether a visual reboot is valid or not. But the claims made in its facor- of one is trying to argue it factually rather than opinion-based- do need to be accurate and intellectually honest. (Which is not meant as a slight against you, just as a general statement.) I don't think arguments that try and discredit the idea of overall consistency (and specific consistency of ship designs/sets) by citing non-comparable examples meets that standard.
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.
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.
All future Trek must be done in TAS style. I have spoken.
And that includes being shot on real, silver-based film, from hand-painted physical cels, copied from hand-drawn original art.
I would have been okay with that a couple of years ago, but now the memory of the Very Short Trips cartoons haunts me.
Similar threads
