Why do they keep going back to the Kirk era?

[Kor]

The first MI was supposed to be an in-continuity sequel to the series, but many fans refused to accept that the treacherous version of Jim Phelps played by Jon Voight was really the same character as the beloved IMF Director played by Peter Graves in the series.

But anyway, I couldn't see the Tom Cruise MI movies as prequels unless they had been made as period pieces like Guy Ritchie's The Man From U.N.C.L.E. movie.

Since Trek takes place in the future, I think there's more wiggle room, especially if we are dealing in "broad strokes."

Kor

 

[fireproof78]

Question-should DSC been made more like a period piece?

 

[Prax]

no

 

[Kor]

Question-should DSC been made more like a period piece?

I would have liked some hint of a sixties vibe. And I think that could work on some level since it's been in the popular consciousness so much in recent years.

I imagine Kirk's house on Earth to look something like the places featured here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/

Kor

 

[Prax]

There is a lot of retro aesthetic in Discovery(trailers) but it feels more Victorian. It's the flashy stuff I don't care for, like holographic minority report displays, crazy lighting everywhere, etc. A starship should be a bit utilitarian. Picture a phone from 1970, and what they look like today. There's a drastic change. Now picture a sincgars radio, then to today. They've hardly changed at all. The internal components have changed, but the rugged casing has not really.

Likewise for cars-they've changed so much. Now picture an army jeep from 1960 to a humvee in 2010. They look very much the same inside. The humvee is much improved in its internal components, but aesthetically, they are hardly different.

So yeah, a little less flash(imo)

 

[Vger23]

Red alert, red alert! Resurrection of 'same ole debate' ahead at warp factor 10 Captain!

Yes, I should respectfully submit myself for disciplinary action...haha!

 

[Greg Cox]

Question-should DSC been made more like a period piece?

No. It shouldn't be a retro-nostalgia thing. It should look like cool and futuristic to modern audiences, just like TOS did back in the sixties.

Otherwise, you're filming the equivalent of a "Captain Proton" holodeck fantasy.

 

[Nyotarules]

Question-should DSC been made more like a period piece?

How can you do a period piece of a 200 year fictional future event?

 

[galad2003]

I work in a "nerdy field" so sometimes I feel out if people are Star Trek fans. A lot of times no or they say they are but after a quick discussion it turns out they are very casual fans compared to people on here. Anyway, my point is when I discuss Trek with them I have found most people have no clue there is a difference between the shows timelines and equally recognize Kirk and Picard. The next most frequent one they know is Janeway or the "woman" captain. Then comes the "black"captain (very few seem to know his name). And no one knows there was Enterprise. Granted this is a very small sample size.

Anyway, my point is that Patrick Stewart resonates in many peoples minds too as Star Trek and to discount that is utterly foolish. There is no need to stick to Kirk as the non-fans don't understand any of it anyway.

 

[Long Syntax]

I would have preferred the newest entry in the ST series be post VOY / post Nemesis - maybe 70 years past, so they could start fresh. Would have avoided the inevitable arguments that we're having here at least.

Having said that, In a broad sense I'm still looking forward to whatever story Fuller wanted to tell. There must be some compelling story there that convinced CBS execs and Moonves to try and leverage the Star Trek franchise again. If it works out, great - we have another chapter in our ongoing favorite TV saga. If it doesn't, well, it won't likely be revisited for some time again.

I'll cross my fingers.

 

[Vger23]

I would have preferred the newest entry in the ST series be post VOY / post Nemesis - maybe 70 years past, so they could start fresh. Would have avoided the inevitable arguments that we're having here at least.

We would have avoided the inevitable arguments we are having here and replaced them with different but equally passionate (and equally pointless) other arguments.

 

[fireproof78]

No. It shouldn't be a retro-nostalgia thing. It should look like cool and futuristic to modern audiences, just like TOS did back in the sixties.

Otherwise, you're filming the equivalent of a "Captain Proton" holodeck fantasy.

Well, Star Trek Enterprise was Riker's holodeck fantasy

In all seriousness, I agree on this point, but given the comparisons between Star Trek and Mad Men, it seems like treating Trek as some historical period piece to be recreated was an itneresting question to explore.

How can you do a period piece of a 200 year fictional future event?

That's my question-how would that be made to work?

Then comes the "black"captain (very few seem to know his name). And no one knows there was Enterprise. Granted this is a very small sample size.

Anyway, my point is that Patrick Stewart resonates in many peoples minds too as Star Trek and to discount that is utterly foolish

I split this a part a little, because I was curious. Is the small sample size related to how many people see Picard as Trek? Or is that more personal experience besides your coworkers?

I've heard on many different sites the frustration that Star Trek keeps going back to TOS when TNG forward was what got them in to Trek. I don't happen to have that experience, but I certainly here the frustration at TOS not being "their Trek."

That said, I find it hard to argue that TOS is the more identifiable and recognizable within pop culture. I think merchandising, as much as anything else, lends itself to that argument.

 

[Spot261]

I work in a "nerdy field" so sometimes I feel out if people are Star Trek fans. A lot of times no or they say they are but after a quick discussion it turns out they are very casual fans compared to people on here. Anyway, my point is when I discuss Trek with them I have found most people have no clue there is a difference between the shows timelines and equally recognize Kirk and Picard. The next most frequent one they know is Janeway or the "woman" captain. Then comes the "black"captain (very few seem to know his name). And no one knows there was Enterprise. Granted this is a very small sample size.

Anyway, my point is that Patrick Stewart resonates in many peoples minds too as Star Trek and to discount that is utterly foolish. There is no need to stick to Kirk as the non-fans don't understand any of it anyway.

You could, of course, turn that argument on it's head by pointing out when TNG aired TOS was trek for every fan. People complained because it wasn't what they were used to and predicted it would fail because of that. What happened in practise is it came to rival TOS and many of the new fans grew up to become exactly the people you are talking about, those for whom TNG is trek.

Now we are seeing those same complaints about Michael Burnham and Captain Lorca, they aren't Picard, much as Picard wasn't Kirk. Many of the long standing fans will doubtless give this a go, some will like it, some will not, (personally I suspect those who have already adapted to repeated reincarnations may be the most forgiving in that regard) but the series will also attract new fans, fans for whom DSC is trek.

DSC is set in a time period almost concurrent with TOS, but besides a couple of non crew cast members and some easter eggs that may well be all they have in common. The team working on it will make their own path, using their own crew, their own plots, their own take on the trek universe and thus equating it with a return to TOS based simply on the time period is disingenuous.

DSC might well fail, or it might well be a success, but it should be allowed to fail or succeed on it's own terms, not as a re hash of TOS.

 

[BillJ]

Captain Lorca...

He is already looking likely to be my favorite character. I get a Jim Kirk/Don Draper vibe from him.

 

[Nyotarules]

Anyway, my point is that Patrick Stewart resonates in many peoples minds too as Star Trek and to discount that is utterly foolish. There is no need to stick to Kirk as the non-fans don't understand any of it anyway.

As you said your sample size is small and hardly scientific. IME when people hear the name Patrick Stewart or see his image they think of the X Men franchise. When casual fans or non fans hear the name Star Trek they recall Spock, Kirk, the black woman, the chinese guy, Scotty and the doctor.
And nothing else.

 

[CorporalClegg]

Well, Star Trek Enterprise was Riker's holodeck fantasy

Jolene Blalock just shivered uncontrollably.

 

[Kor]

When non-SF fans I know hear "Star Trek," they think Darth Vader.

Kor

 

[BillJ]

As you said your sample size is small and hardly scientific. IME when people hear the name Patrick Stewart or see his image they think of the X Men franchise. When casual fans or non fans hear the name Star Trek they recall Spock, Kirk, the black woman, the chinese guy, Scotty and the doctor.
And nothing else.

I'm a Star Trek fan, and when I think of Patrick Stewart, I think more of Avery Bullock than Jean-Luc Picard.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[FormerLurker]

2) Writer fatigue. I think writers were getting tired by the end of Voyager. They had forgotten how to write compelling character stories and were just relying on technobabble to save the day. Voyager's bat-armor anyone? So, I think TPTB wanted to go back to a more primitive era in order to get away from the uber tech of the post-Voyager era.

This was Berman's excuse for cancelling TNG, DS9, and VGR at seven years across the board. Yet each time, he took the same identical writing staff and moved on to the next Trek series to tell even more convoluted and contrived stories that read and recited as tired and old.

How do you combat writer fatigue? Simple. Get new writers. Oh, sure, keep one or two of the old ones as editorial staff, to make sure the technobabble is spelled correctly and used in the correct place, but beyond that, get new writers and let them do whatever they want within the confines of the premise. Hell, if Berman had done that with TNG, it might even still be on the air. Me, I'd love to see a version of the Enterprise D with a completely different cast that slowly replaced itself a'la Law and Order, all running around on the same ship, having new adventures and making the galaxy safe for egalitarianism everywhere.

 

[Prax]

Yes, yes, lets disparage the older shows and all the hard work that so many people put into them. They were always bringing on new writers, new interns. Like some other series, the Berman era trek shows worked as a writer's apprenticeship. Those who were talented were brought on to the writers staff. Those who were talented and competent in the business were promoted again to showrunner(head writer), then executive producer, then asked to help create new shows. There was some crossover, but each show had its own core writing team. Enterprise had a bunch of new writers.

What were they supposed to do? Fire everyone after every two years and hire all new writers? Is this the model for success? Is this what Law & Order did?

How many times did Law and Order recycle the same old stories over and over in 20+ years on the air?