Would you accept a TOS-era spinoff with updated visuals, but otherwise kept established continunity?

[Ralphis]

I could be way wrong, which I often am, but after watching the teaser released a couple weeks ago for Star Trek: Discovery, I feel like this show might be a little bit of a visual reimagining of the TOS-era, while attempting to keep the established 'story' continuity of the 'Prime Timeline' Star Trek intact.

My question is: would you accept something like this?

Personally, I would very much accept this. While I do feel Discovery, or any future Trek show set in this time frame, should try to pay homage to the look and feel of TOS whenever and wherever possible, I also don't think they should be obligated to have a 100% adherence to it either. I want all future Trek to look fresh and inviting to potential new fans, but also have enough for the old fans to appreciate it.

However, I remember when Enterprise first aired people were literally infuriated anytime anything looked more advanced than what they saw on TOS, TNG, etc. And even the USS Kelvin and USS Franklin caused a considerable amount of uproar as those ships technically exist in the Original Timeline with the timeline split occurring in 2233.

So, again, would you accept something set in the TOS-era that's a bit of a visual reimagining, but still tries to keep the established 'story' continuity of the 'Prime Timeline" intact?

Moderators: I debated whether or not this belongs in the Discovery forum. I kind of felt like that it was a general enough question that it could be posted here, but if I'm wrong, please move it there and accept my apology.

 

[WebLurker]

I think it depends on if the new designs make sense within the continuity. I find that extreme visual differences make it hard to suspend disbelief. I think ENT did it right.

Conversely, seeing the visuals recreated faithfully can be great, like they did in Star Wars: Rogue One.

 

[Kor]

What's "more advanced?" We have been conditioned by Star Wars and other more recent science fiction to think that all kinds of pieces of cluttered mechanical junk stuck to something makes it more detailed and futuristic.

I, for one, love retro futurism featuring smooth, sleek, clean lines and minimalist design. My ideal 2260s Trek production would look like a cross between 2001: A Space Odyssey (except for all the greebles on the Discovery exterior) and Mad Men in space.

Kor

 

[C.E. Evans]

I think this thread title just described what Discovery will be.

 

[LJones41]

No. I would like to see a Trek series that is set after 2378 or perhaps into the 25th century.

 

[F. King Daniel]

"Accept" it how? If it's made my the rights holders and says "Star Trek" on it, I accept it as Star Trek.

I'm much more interested in whether it's good or not than whether the visual or storyline minutiae lines up.

 

[Greg Cox]

If the show is good, I don't care what continuity it's in. I'm not going to "accept" or "reject" anything because of a timeline issue.

As for the art direction . .. if it works, go for it. My only concern would be whether too retro a look would turn off modern viewers and the general audience.

 

[uniderth]

I could be way wrong, which I often am, but after watching the teaser released a couple weeks ago for Star Trek: Discovery, I feel like this show might be a little bit of a visual reimagining of the TOS-era, while attempting to keep the established 'story' continuity of the 'Prime Timeline' Star Trek intact.

My question is: would you accept something like this?

Personally, I would very much accept this. While I do feel Discovery, or any future Trek show set in this time frame, should try to pay homage to the look and feel of TOS whenever and wherever possible, I also don't think they should be obligated to have a 100% adherence to it either. I want all future Trek to look fresh and inviting to potential new fans, but also have enough for the old fans to appreciate it.

However, I remember when Enterprise first aired people were literally infuriated anytime anything looked more advanced than what they saw on TOS, TNG, etc. And even the USS Kelvin and USS Franklin caused a considerable amount of uproar as those ships technically exist in the Original Timeline with the timeline split occurring in 2233.

So, again, would you accept something set in the TOS-era that's a bit of a visual reimagining, but still tries to keep the established 'story' continuity of the 'Prime Timeline" intact?

Moderators: I debated whether or not this belongs in the Discovery forum. I kind of felt like that it was a general enough question that it could be posted here, but if I'm wrong, please move it there and accept my apology.

Keeping the established story is Star Trek is paramount(eh.eh.). No actually telling good stories is paramount but these two goals don't contradict each other. The image some Trek fans paint of Star Trek trudging along, being crushed under the weight of it's established continuity is BS. Star Trek is no more "weighed down" by continuity than our real universe is weighed down by our own history. Amazing stories can still be told within the framework of established continuity. Rebooting or re-imagining is just a piss poor excuse for lazy writing. "Meh, I can't be bothered to fact check and edit my story sooooo... it's in an alternate universe."

Now having said that, I think there is a lot that people consider canon/continuity that just isn't. For example the whole "Spock was the first Vulcanian in Starfleet." *buzz* WRONG. the glowy nacelle domes on Kirk's Enterprise are Bussard Collectors. *buzz* wrong again!
At the same time there is a lot that isn't explicitly depicted or mentioned, but could be logically assumed.

In either case, I think there is a fair bit of leeway, while still sticking with established continuity. Who says there can't be nano technology in Kirk's era? Or off-earth genetic engineering, or transhumanism. We've only seen a small fraction of what is out there.

The same goes for the look of a series. I agree that the way something looks doesn't dictate how advanced it is. While I disregard Enterprise, I think the arguments that it looks more advanced than Kirk's Enterprise are rubbish. Something isn't necessarily more advanced just, becasue it has shiny lights and greeblies. Things "look" more advanced when they are different than people's frame of reference. We live in cities with blocky sky scrapers. Swoopy curvy skyscrapers look more advanced to us. But if we lived in curvy skyscrapers then blocky skyscrapers would look more advanced.

I think there is a bit of leeway in how stuff would look. Though for any particular series we get a general idea of what any particular group's design theme looks like. We have a good idea of what Starfleet technology, ship design, uniform design, etc. is in Pike's era. So there's a bit of leeway for what a new series in the same era could present. But radical departures from the established forms, are grounds for expulsion.

 

[BillJ]

It is a tricky line to walk. I'll have to see the show in motion to decide whether it is a modern take on the original designs or something completely new. Right now, I'm treating Discovery as a reboot and will love/hate it based on its own merits.

But, even from a storytelling perspective, stories are just told in such a different manner now, that even if it lines up with the fictional history it will have a difficult time feeling like it takes place just prior to TOS. Most novel writers have trouble mixing the two differing styles, @Greg Cox and @Dayton Ward do it best. No disrespect intended towards Kirsten Beyer (who is a phenomenal writer), but I would've been more excited if Cox or Ward had been the novelist brought in.

 

[Greg Cox]

. Most novel writers have trouble mixing the two differing styles, @Greg Cox and @Dayton Ward do it best. No disrespect intended towards Kirsten Beyer (who is a phenomenal writer), but I would've been more excited if Cox or Ward had been the novelist brought in.

I'm sure we can expect great things from Kirsten, but thanks for the vote of confidence!

And, yes, when writing TOS you do have to try to strike a balance between accurately capturing the feel of the original 1960s TV series and still keeping in mind that you're writing for readers in 2017, not 1967. Easier said than done sometimes.

 

[Idran]

I could be way wrong, which I often am, but after watching the teaser released a couple weeks ago for Star Trek: Discovery, I feel like this show might be a little bit of a visual reimagining of the TOS-era, while attempting to keep the established 'story' continuity of the 'Prime Timeline' Star Trek intact.

My question is: would you accept something like this?

I'd watch a Vanguard series, yeah.

 

[Ralphis]

What's "more advanced?"

What I meant was "updated visuals". Not advanced in regards to in-universe functionality.

 

[Ralphis]

"Accept" it how? If it's made my the rights holders and says "Star Trek" on it, I accept it as Star Trek.

I realize that anything Paramount or CBS does is 'officially' accepted as Star Trek. But I mean would you 'personally' accept it? Example, I have a friend who labels himself a huge Star Trek fan, but outright rejects Voyager - it's not in his 'personal canon.' What I was trying to ask was if you all would accept a show like this in your 'personal canon'.

If the show is good, I don't care what continuity it's in. I'm not going to "accept" or "reject" anything because of a timeline issue.

Absolutely, 100% this. I just want a show that's good and something people can enjoy.

 

[The Old Mixer]

Moderators: I debated whether or not this belongs in the Discovery forum. I kind of felt like that it was a general enough question that it could be posted here, but if I'm wrong, please move it there and accept my apology.

I'm kind of on the fence about it myself. It does strike me as something that's probably being discussed in the Discovery forum a lot...but I think it's probably OK here if my co-mod agrees.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I realize that anything Paramount or CBS does is 'officially' accepted as Star Trek. But I mean would you 'personally' accept it? Example, I have a friend who labels himself a huge Star Trek fan, but outright rejects Voyager - it's not in his 'personal canon.' What I was trying to ask was if you all would accept a show like this in your 'personal canon'.

Since there is no such thing as "personal canon", I don't really see what's left to argue about. It's there. It's not going anywhere. It's in continuity whether we like it or not.

I mean, you can like or not like the show, but "acceptance" is the wrong word to use, IMHO. It implies a choice where none exists.

 

[1001001]

I'm kind of on the fence about it myself. It does strike me as something that's probably being discussed in the Discovery forum a lot...but I think it's probably OK here if my co-mod agrees.

I gave it some thought too, and came to the same conclusion you did.

I'm okay with it staying here.

 

[Tosk]

Just make it good.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

I guess I'm okay with updated visuals as long as they don't start to contradict or overwrite the original show. I liked some of the replacements for the TOS matte paintings in the Remastered Trek very much. Others I was mixed on (The new show of the Enterprise approaching the Fesarius totally screwed up the scale of the original shot).

Short version, I don't mind a flashier design for graphics on the bridge but I hope it still recalls the TOS aesthetic. And while I know we're going to see new uniforms on Discovery I still hope they don't look too out of place with what we saw on the original series.

 

[Vger23]

Just make it good.

That's it right there folks. I could give a ratsass where it's set or what it looks like. Just entertain and challenge me with that old Trek magic, and I'll stick with you.

 

[Ralphis]

Since there is no such thing as "personal canon", I don't really see what's left to argue about. It's there. It's not going anywhere. It's in continuity whether we like it or not.

I mean, you can like or not like the show, but "acceptance" is the wrong word to use, IMHO. It implies a choice where none exists.

I never meant to come across as argumentative. If that's the way I did come across then I apologize. I was just trying to better explain my point, which I obviously failed at doing.

And as to your point about using the word 'accept', fair enough. It was a word I used and gave absolutely little thought to it. I never imagined it would cause me so much grief. But I see your point, and I think you're right. I apologize.

I'm beginning to think I need to hire a public relations specialist to post things on here for me, instead of me posting them directly. I obviously suck at this game. =D