• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

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

If it worked, why not? Probably depends on how good the writing and acting were.

See, that's where I can't get your guys' viewpoint. We agree that what matters is that the writing and acting are good. I don't get why this can't apply to existing designs? If the writing and acting are good then who cares if it matches the '60's design? It's like you guys are saying that design change isn't that important provided the designs ARE changed. Writing and acting are what matters only if the designs are reimagined. If the designs aren't reimagined then no amount of good writing or acting can save it.

If writing and good acting are what matters, then why not get BONUS points for keeping things somewhat consistent? Now you would have three positives: good writing, good acting, AND good consistency.
 
No one is saying they HAVE to cling religiously to the old designs or all is doomed. I'm just saying that a change in art direction is not as big a deal as people often seem to think . . and kinda to be expected when dealing with long-running properties. In general, I think it's a good idea not to get too fundamentalist about this stuff. Better to accept that the look of the various TV shows and movies are going to evolve over the decades, and that every alteration in the visuals doesn't require an in-universe explanation.

Nor is consistency always a virtue. I think we can all agree that the movie Klingons have aged better than the swarthy, mustachioed Klingons of TOS, as much as I love them for nostalgia's sake. But who knows? Chances are, fifteen years from now, a new generation of Trekkies will be complaining that the latest Klingons don't look as cool as the ones on DISCOVERY, which will be the ones they grew up on.

Times change, and so does STAR TREK. And history suggests that audiences are a lot more flexible than is sometimes assumed.

Plus, "consistency" is not always seen as a bonus or virtue, except to traditionalists. "New and different!" is generally a more exciting sales pitch than "just the same as before!" :)

Look at it this way: we've had the "new" Klingons for nearly forty years now. Aren't you kinda intrigued or curious about what a brand-new approach might look like? Just for novelty's sake?
 
Last edited:
In "Ethics," the TNG episode that involves Worf getting spinal surgery, he had some very visible back spinage going on.

Given how easily Mudd could tell that Spock was only "part Vulcanian," it would actually make sense for 100% Vulcans to look noticeably different, instead of having the exact same features as Spock.
Beat me to it!
 
On the original question-- If a Trek producer doesn't want the 23rd century designs, s/he shouldn't set a show in the 23rd century. No one has to. If you do set a show there, don't go out of your way to make intentional mistakes, which is what they would be, as far as what that era looks like. If I make a show set in the 17th century, I'm not going to try to "update" the 17th century. The look is part of why you set a show in this or that era.
---------------------
What I do like the idea of is adding a bit of subtle detail, possibly, to established designs, of a Constitution class starship and bridge. Or use a different class of ship that may look very different, yet fit into that century, with TOS ships matching the TOS designs appearing also. If it's an Enterprise type ship, what I'm thinking is that we get details that don't scream out at you... they'd just subconsciously highten your sense of all this (and TOS) being real... as if the new show is showing us just the same ships and control panels, etc, that we saw in TOS, only this time with improved focus, so that we're picking more up.
-------------------------
Besides, TOS design is inspired and remarkable.
 
On the original question-- If a Trek producer doesn't want the 23rd century designs, s/he shouldn't set a show in the 23rd century. No one has to. If you do set a show there, don't go out of your way to make intentional mistakes, which is what they would be, as far as what that era looks like. If I make a show set in the 17th century, I'm not going to try to "update" the 17th century. The look is part of why you set a show in this or that era.
---------------------.

Do I have to point out that the 17th century really happened, but that the 23rd century is just science fiction at this point?

TOS was a 1960s vision of the future. DISCOVERY is going to be a 21st century update of a 1960s version of the 23rd century, influenced by movies and TV shows from the eighties and nineties.

Historical accuracy is not really an issue here. :)
 
Last edited:
It's all make-believe, and I'll be perfectly happy to give Discovery a chance...if they eventually put it somewhere I can watch it without having to pay for a streaming service that I don't want.
 
Okay, but the Founding Fathers really did sing in "1776," right? Even in the reboot with Brent Spiner as John Adams?

(And, yes, I know "1776" is actually in the 18th Century, but I couldn't think of any good 1600s jokes.)

I think the thing is for some people, remixing the look of the world makes it harder to get into the story. Also, I'd point out that in some cases, re-creating the original setting can make the experience more immersive and enjoyable (e.g. Rogue One). Also, changing things up undermines the internal consistency of the franchise. After all, part of the point of Discovery is to go back to the neat-TOS era. If it's a completely different beast, they might have well just done something brand-new.
 
Do I have to point out that the 17th century really happened, but that the 23rd century is just science fiction at this point?

No, you absolutely do not need to point that out.

TOS was a 1960s vision of the future. DISCOVERY is going to be a 21st century update of a 1960s version of the 23rd century, influenced by movies and TV shows from the eighties and nineties.

Historical accuracy is not really an issue here. :)

If you want to throw internally consistent world-building out the window, at least don't set it in a familiar fictional era, so the contradiction won't be so glaring. But why not get Trek out of the equation altogether? Trek principles can be expressed in an original show. Why even bother to connect one's show to a show/era one feels such a need to break away from, at least visually?
------------------
Here's why, I guess. It's much riskier to make original shows, than it is to remake something with an established, successful name. Well, we have our TOS "re-imagining", the Abrams things. That should warn us against them.
 
Personally, I quite like the reboot movies, and prefer them to most of the TNG movies, but that's a whole other discussion that's been been done to death at this point.
 
I would think that if one is specifically trying to do something in a franchise set in a specific timeframe, one would at least attempt to make that timeframe look similar to what had come before. If for no other reason than to make it possible to reuse older material without much or any need to explain it away. Also so that the audience can get the when this is taking place relatively easily.

TMP works as a tech upgrade and is explained as such for much of it. The Klingons are different, but flying around in a ship that looks at least recognizably like the ones from the third season of Star Trek. The bridge crew of the Enterprise are played by the same actors, so that connect the dots for the audience.

For TNG, we know going in that it has been roughly a hundred years since TOS, so it is understandable that things change, yet also looks somewhat the same or familiar.

Star Trek (2009) we understand that the timeline is different. Things changed, but somethings are still at least partly the same or at least recognizable.

With Discovery coming, we aren't sure what they are going to do. If they are intent on making this series set about ten years before Kirk's missions as seen in TOS, than it should stand to reason that some of the authentic qualities would remain recognizable even if made to look like a future of 2017 as oppose to 1967. Design elements from Star Trek: Enterprise and/or USS Franklin in Beyond being used for older ships and/or props would also help for consistency. Should a Constitution-class starship, for whatever reason, show up on screen, it should probably look somewhat like the ship from the 1960s and not something radically different. If they have a bridge set for said Constitution, it should probably looks somewhat like the 1964 bridge in pattern and maybe coloration. The details can be series modern 2017-ism. Just the look should be close enough to say, "Oh so that's what it would look like today instead of filmed in 1965", instead of saying "That looks totally different, there is no way that could be the same thing as before" Even taking into account our own technological advances, you don't change something radically when you don't have to do so. Other ships can have any design styling they choose and Starfleet ships could look different than a Constitution both inside and out, but if a Constitution appears on screen, it should look at least plausibly like the old 1960s ship that they kept using all the way up to 2005 and even 2013.
 
Personally, I quite like the reboot movies, and prefer them to most of the TNG movies, but that's a whole other discussion that's been been done to death at this point.

I wasn't really intending to kick start that argument either. Just trying to point out that those movies are a bit of a frail 'stick,' when used in a pursuasive argument.

As for 'consistency' and 'world building,' they sound like mutually contradicting concepts to me. World building expands the status quo. Things aren't 'the same' afterwards, retcon or not.
 
Critical, financial, and popular success. Trekkies beware, you're in for a scare.

How defiant that sounds. For the sake of some shallow, glitzy popcorn movies. Critical success? Anything's possible I guess, but I didn't think so. Financially? I don't care. They don't seem to be very popular amongst long term fans. And I thought sales were dropping off more with each movie.
----------------------
This post sounds like: "Old Trek fans are losers, new Trek fans are winners".
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top