why wasnt TOS referenced more visually in 1-6?

[Khan 2.0]

Beyond a Tribble, Andorian etc there wasn't much in the way of visual call backs to the TV show (phasers/props, uniforms, nacelles, sets etc) like there was in later Trek (TNG/Relics, DS9/Tribbles, FC/Phoenix, ENT/season 4, and obviously the JJ films. plus Beyond did it with ENT). Obviously the ships/sets were all similar/updated but there wasn't much in actual TOS style ships/props etc. Not thought too much about where stuff could've been seen but TMP was set not that long after the 5 year mission so you'd expect the odd uniform, prop, ship popping up maybe (the Directors Cut CGed in a TOS style shuttle taking off at San Francisco). Maybe a few prop things in the Botany Bay, a TOS ship in spacedock in III (think either the Phase 2 or Planet of the Titans Enterprise can be seen almost hidden) , and VI could've done with a few more visual nods esp as it was the 25th (maybe he alien Kirk fights could've been a Gorn! -obviously updated abit)

It seems as though the movies were deliberately trying to get away from the visual look of the series as if to say hey forget the cheap looking TOS this is what Trek is supposed to look like (*obviously the TNG films didn't have that issue). Sure I read somewhere that at the time of the first few movies it was considered by some as that's what TOS always looked like -ships, Klingons etc but the budget wouldn't allow for it and it wasn't until later (Relics?) that TOS 'look' was fully acknowledged which eventually led to even bother with the Klingon explanation.

 

[Gov Kodos]

For what the films were, there was plenty. It sounds like you want more Easter eggs which is fun but it doesn't really add to the story it's just scene clutter.

 

[BillJ]

It seems as though the movies were deliberately trying to get away from the visual look of the series as if to say hey forget the cheap looking TOS this is what Trek is supposed to look like...

It would be silly to continue to lean on a look that was a decade out of date (TOS was one of the most expensive shows of the time). I think it says a lot about the quality of the designs, that the basics have survived into the modern productions.

Essentially, time stops for no one.

 

[Takeru]

Later Trek obviously had the advantage of high quality models of ships ready to use. The main reason TNG featured several Excelsior, Miranda and Oberth class vessels for example is because they had those models lying around. The same is true for props, costumes and set pieces.

When they did TMP there wasn't much left from TOS and what was left wasn't usable for the big screen. They had to rebuilt everything and if you do that you don't recreate old stuff, they didn't even bother to do any callbacks to the TNG bridge beyond three center seats when they build the E bridge for First Contact and that was only 2 years after Generations, not 10!

 

[f14peter]

there is a model of the pre-refit Enterprise in Kirk's quarters in VI, seen out of focus when he's talking to Valeris

 

[cardinal biggles]

The communicator, phaser, and tricorder introduced in TSFS were deliberate throwbacks to their TOS counterparts.

While they did introduce a more beefy-looking phaser in TFF (complete with a rackable pistol slide and interchangeable power pack "clips"), the communicator and tricorder continued to be used in the last two TOS films with slight modifications.

 

[Therin of Andor]

Uhura's earpiece in TMP is the same one she used in TOS. On Day 1 of filming for TMP, Nichelle asked, "Where's my earpiece?" No one had thought to make a new one, so the props guy raced down to where he knew the TOS stuff was stored. Everyone was amazed at his efficiency!

 

[Philip Guyott]

Because it was a reboot!

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

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Because it was a reboot!

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

That was a really good video. I just subscribed to his channel.

 

[Philip Guyott]

That was a really good video. I just subscribed to his channel.

It is the same guy who is behind the Star Trek fan production Pacific 201. He also makes videos like this one for Star Wars. He is very talented.

 

[lawman]

Because it was a reboot!

The guy made an interesting video, but in service of his thesis he pretty radically redefined the word "reboot." My own understanding and, I think, the consensus understanding in fandom (not just in Trek, but also comics, SF, etc.) is that a new depiction of something that keeps continuity with what went before is not a reboot. Indeed, you can even alter bits of past continuity (which Trek did in well-known ways, as he notes) without being a reboot — although it may qualify as a "retcon." Only a complete, from-square-one reimagining is a reboot. So the 2004 version of Battlestar Galactica qualifies, but The Force Awakens definitely does not... and neither do any of the Star Trek films (at least, not until J.J. Abrams came along).

 

[Lance]

The guy made an interesting video, but in service of his thesis he pretty radically redefined the word "reboot." My own understanding and, I think, the consensus understanding in fandom (not just in Trek, but also comics, SF, etc.) is that a new depiction of something that keeps continuity with what went before is not a reboot. Indeed, you can even alter bits of past continuity (which Trek did in well-known ways, as he notes) without being a reboot — although it may qualify as a "retcon." Only a complete, from-square-one reimagining is a reboot. So the 2004 version of Battlestar Galactica qualifies, but The Force Awakens definitely does not... and neither do any of the Star Trek films (at least, not until J.J. Abrams came along).

I like the video, I even agree with the general gist of it vis-a-vis TMP radically altering a lot of what we might have expected from 1966-1969 Star Trek. But I agree that it's more of a 'retcon' than a reboot.... it's very clearly an extensive retcon of TOS, nearly to the point of being so radically different as to be a reboot, but it's not a complete white-washing of it, and the carrying over of the main cast (rather than recasting) is obviously a big factor. TNG is obviously a sequel despite arguably making even more extensive retcons to the franchise as a whole.

If TMP had've been like the 1990s Lost In Space movie, recasting everybody and overwriting our perception of the universe as established in the TV show then yes it would've been a reboot. As it was, it was more of a "what happened after?" kind of deal. I do think Wise may have gone slightly too far in neutering the TOS aesthetic, I do think they should've carried more of that over for continuity's sake.

The guy's other videos do make a lot of valid points though. For example, I agree with him that the modern movies have considerably more in common with what TOS actually was than anything else with the Star Trek name does, including most of the original TOS movies. They easily capture the essence of what the TV show was in a way that even the best TOS movies kind of didn't.

 

[lawman]

The guy's other videos do make a lot of valid points though. For example, I agree with him that the modern movies have considerably more in common with what TOS actually was than anything else with the Star Trek name does, including most of the original TOS movies. They easily capture the essence of what the TV show was in a way that even the best TOS movies kind of didn't.

Huh. I haven't watched that one, but from the way you describe it I'd have to disagree fairly strongly. I'm a huge fan of TOS, and I'd have to say my abiding dislike of the Abrams films stems from all the myriad ways they completely fail to capture the essence of what the original Trek was. (The plotting is dumbed-down, the action scenes are dialed up to superheroic proportions, the characterizations are Flanderized, the design aesthetic is awful, the moral center is largely absent, and I could go on.) But, evidently, opinions differ...

 

[Ovation]

Huh. I haven't watched that one, but from the way you describe it I'd have to disagree fairly strongly. I'm a huge fan of TOS, and I'd have to say my abiding dislike of the Abrams films stems from all the myriad ways they completely fail to capture the essence of what the original Trek was. (The plotting is dumbed-down, the action scenes are dialed up to super heroic proportions, the characterizations are Flanderized, the design aesthetic is awful, the moral center is largely absent, and I could go on.) But, evidently, opinions differ...

They do indeed as I disagree with each complaint you've listed (and I've been watching Trek since 1973, with TOS as, by far, my favourite series. Different strokes, etc. (Also an excellent example of why filmmakers shouldn't "listen to the fans"--never make everyone happy regardless).

 

[OpenMaw]

or "Don't listen to the fans unless it's ME." As I've seen almost directly implied in some conversations.

Also i'm not entirely sure it's fair to blame Wise for TMP lacking the visual continuity with TOS. That was really Roddenberry I think. He really wanted Trek to feel serious and to have a sense of credibility, and up to a point I think TMP does do that... I just think the big issue there was, as Nimoy points out in one of his interviews... It lacked all the charm and humor in the characters. The humanity, as it were.

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

^ His story about that final scene in particular is very telling. "We have to be serious to be taken seriously." Seems like typical producer thinking... That you need kids to appeal to kids, etc... Backwards logic. The material should be taken seriously if it needs to be taken seriously, but you do need some levity, and I think a lot of the character stuff that get's chopped out of TMP in some edits is simply the wrong stuff to cut... Take out half of that 35(!!!) minutes of excessive ship shots.

But I guess we're talking more about the aesthetics... I think it's all symptomatic of the same creative thought. I don't think it would have hurt to throw some splashes of color in there. The uniforms could have done with muted variations of the TOS colors. I'm actually totally fine we never saw "TOS STUFF" just stuck in the movies, though. It would stick out. Just as that TOS shuttle taking off in the director's cut sticks out. The "brain" behind the designs is different, and it shows.

 

[Richard Baker]

I liked the TOS Shuttle- it let me know this was indeed the same universe with some technological upgrades. If you visit a current military base you will see equipment which is both new state of the art and stuff which has been around for decades.

Easter Eggs are OK but they do have a 'HEY- LOOK AT ME' factor which can be distracting.
Sometimes they work in well though- I still remember the feeling when they appeared on the 1701-A Bridge and I heard some of the bridge sound effects used in the TOS era- it was like "OK, We're home..."

 

[Lance]

Huh. I haven't watched that one, but from the way you describe it I'd have to disagree fairly strongly. I'm a huge fan of TOS, and I'd have to say my abiding dislike of the Abrams films stems from all the myriad ways they completely fail to capture the essence of what the original Trek was. (The plotting is dumbed-down, the action scenes are dialed up to superheroic proportions, the characterizations are Flanderized, the design aesthetic is awful, the moral center is largely absent, and I could go on.) But, evidently, opinions differ...

It is worth watching. I think it's the one called "Did JJ Understand Star Trek". He makes a compelling case for why the new movies have more in common with TOS than anything else made in the Trek name.

 

[Lee]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe in a TrekBBS post?) that the reason the sets, props etc. looked so different from TOS was because Roddenberry was involved in a dispute with Franz Joseph over royalties for his Blueprints and Technical Manual, and thus avoided all visual references to TOS (which would, of necessity, have also referenced Joseph's work). I don't recall whether what I read was suggesting that Roddenberry's decision was based on legal advisability given the dispute, or whether it was simply out of spite against Joseph, but either way, Roddenberry decided to go in a completely different visual direction.

 

[Nerys Myk]

I remember reading somewhere (maybe in a TrekBBS post?) that the reason the sets, props etc. looked so different from TOS was because Roddenberry was involved in a dispute with Franz Joseph over royalties for his Blueprints and Technical Manual, and thus avoided all visual references to TOS (which would, of necessity, have also referenced Joseph's work). I don't recall whether what I read was suggesting that Roddenberry's decision was based on legal advisability given the dispute, or whether it was simply out of spite against Joseph, but either way, Roddenberry decided to go in a completely different visual direction.

I don't see how that could be true, since Joseph didn't design any of the props or sets seen on TOS.

 

[Trekkin]

I don't see how that could be true, since Joseph didn't design any of the props or sets seen on TOS.

Sounds to me like one of...



...Amesjay Nixoday's 'explanations.'