World-building expands the fictional "universe", fleshing it out, adding detail and scope. It doesn't alter what has already been shown. It adds to that.
Would you accept a TOS-era spinoff with updated visuals, but otherwise kept established continunity?
- Thread starter Ralphis
- Start date
World-building expands the fictional "universe", fleshing it out, adding detail and scope. It doesn't alter what has already been shown. It adds to that.
Truly, RL Stine is one of the sharpest and most passionate wordsmiths of our age.
'Adding' is 'changing.' When you combine eggs and water with flour, the total result is no longer simply 'flour.'
A retcon can also expand and add detail to other preexisting elements (for eg. Starfleet and The Federation permanently replacing the revolving door of authoritive bodies in early TOS.) They're all tools from the same box.
Multi-quote is another useful tool, in certain situations.
Last edited:
if by visuals you mean the optical effects, of course, those are just baubles, the beast wears, similarly sets built with modern materials and techniques, but following MJ's original design aesthetics, is cool, it wouldn't match the original one for one, but them's the breaks in doing a modern production, it's careless and unneeded violation of established concepts and internal continuity, that would get my goat
I admit that small tweaks in the fictional reality are sometimes needed, but only when something really isn't working, and is holding the show back. You do as little of that as possible and you avoid changing anything in an obvious, overt way. You get that stuff out of the way early on, then set this stuff in stone. Birth pangs...
Adding is changing? Not sure what you mean. Consistent world-building means that TOS stays as it is, then TNG, DS9, and Voyager are added to its future, without altering TOS, factually or visually. It can also mean fan fiction that shows what's going on in other places in TOS's era, or the future or past of the characters. Not changing the fictional facts or visuals of TOS, just showing more of that "universe".
Depends on the long-term fan. I've been a fan since TOS first aired on NBC and I've enjoyed the new movies, to varying degrees, just as I like the older movies, to varying degrees. (KHAN remains my favorite, with the whale movie a close second, but we do not speak of the fifth movie.) And I'm inclined to give DISCOVERY the benefit of the doubt, no matter how closely they do or don't hew to the old designs.
But all us old-timers do not speak with one voice, so we should be wary of making sweeping generalizations about what the "the long term fans" think. We're an opinionated bunch, actually, who seldom agree on anything--as this message board proves every day.
I've been a fan of Trek since I was about four years old, with a love of TOS above all others. I enjoy the NuTrek movies significantly more than the vast majority of Trek from 1991 onward. They finally made Star Trek fun again, and they finally made me care about Trek again after the years of profound disappointment in the sheer mediocrity of VOY and ENT.
Back to the topic of this thread, yes, I would accept it... If It Was Done Well (TM).
Kor
Back to the topic of this thread, yes, I would accept it... If It Was Done Well (TM).
Kor
But all us old-timers do not speak with one voice, so we should be wary of making sweeping generalizations about what the "the long term fans" think.
All I said was that I think they're not very popular amongst long-standing fans ... not that every single older fan dislikes them. No sweeping over-generalization... just a regular, ordinary little generalization... I get my impression they're not very popular from coming here and reading posts about them every day.
Okay, let's say that's true. It's a terrible way of gauging the extent of a fandom response, but let's go with it.
Why does that mean that anyone should be wary of emulating Paramount's approach, and pro exploring another one? There's always going to be 'lots' of people that don't like something. Trekkies are a reasonably big bunch, so even our tiniest minority sub-groups are gonna have a reasonable number of members.
That's why critics, ratings, and BO are important. They give bean counters a way to measure when 'alot' of negative people, becomes 'an actual problem in need of a fix.'
Why does that mean that anyone should be wary of emulating Paramount's approach, and pro exploring another one? There's always going to be 'lots' of people that don't like something. Trekkies are a reasonably big bunch, so even our tiniest minority sub-groups are gonna have a reasonable number of members.
That's why critics, ratings, and BO are important. They give bean counters a way to measure when 'alot' of negative people, becomes 'an actual problem in need of a fix.'
I think the best-case scenario would be to come up with something that's new (maybe looking like it evolved out of ENT) but also looks like it will evolve into TOS, as seen in the TV shows. There should be new designs (and aliens), but I think taking advantage of the pre-TOS setting and making it look like the previous generation of tech would work quite well (Think Star Wars: Rebels to the original Star Wars trilogy).
And that might be the thing. You can do that with tech, make changes and stuff in a way that makes sense. With aliens, not so much. Logically, they would have the same genome and not suddenly evolve one way and back in a couple generations.
Hard to say. I hate the first two, but thought Beyond was a good Star Trek film and worthy of the name. It's also worth bearing in mind that some people think seeing the franchise from a new angle is fun. Other people aren't too worried about continuity (canon seems to be the main sticking point for Kelvin Timeline haters). Also, for many fans, this is their first exposure to Star Trek, so this is the "real" thing for them, what the franchise is when stripped to it's most basic elements.
(I can relate; I'm a Spider-Man fan, but was introduced through the original movies and Ultimate comics, not the original Amazing Spider-Man comics, which are, for all practical purposes, the canonical or "real" version of Peter Parker and company. It's the aforementioned adaptations that define what the character is and should be like to me, what I'm think of as the "real" deal.)
[EDIT in response to @Hela's comment: Also, this is only one section of the movie's fanbase. Not all fans post here. Also, the Kelvin Timeline's fans go beyond the Trekkies. They include "non-fans" who like movies and have their opinions. So, while I think it's fair to say that the new movies don't have anywhere near the integration into pop culture that the others have yet, they are making their own mark. Also, they're drawing in many fans to enjoy the other stuff, too. So, they're acting as a gateway to the parts of the franchise that some of us prefer.)
And that might be the thing. You can do that with tech, make changes and stuff in a way that makes sense. With aliens, not so much. Logically, they would have the same genome and not suddenly evolve one way and back in a couple generations.
Hard to say. I hate the first two, but thought Beyond was a good Star Trek film and worthy of the name. It's also worth bearing in mind that some people think seeing the franchise from a new angle is fun. Other people aren't too worried about continuity (canon seems to be the main sticking point for Kelvin Timeline haters). Also, for many fans, this is their first exposure to Star Trek, so this is the "real" thing for them, what the franchise is when stripped to it's most basic elements.
(I can relate; I'm a Spider-Man fan, but was introduced through the original movies and Ultimate comics, not the original Amazing Spider-Man comics, which are, for all practical purposes, the canonical or "real" version of Peter Parker and company. It's the aforementioned adaptations that define what the character is and should be like to me, what I'm think of as the "real" deal.)
[EDIT in response to @Hela's comment: Also, this is only one section of the movie's fanbase. Not all fans post here. Also, the Kelvin Timeline's fans go beyond the Trekkies. They include "non-fans" who like movies and have their opinions. So, while I think it's fair to say that the new movies don't have anywhere near the integration into pop culture that the others have yet, they are making their own mark. Also, they're drawing in many fans to enjoy the other stuff, too. So, they're acting as a gateway to the parts of the franchise that some of us prefer.)
Star Trek (2009) and Into Darkness were good films. They just didn't seem like Star Trek, to me. Star Trek: Beyond was also a good film, but felt like Star Trek to me. This means all three were good films, but only one felt like Star Trek from my point of view. As to why he felt more like Star Trek. Not really sure. Maybe it was because the actors seemed more comfortable in their roles. Maybe it was because they were on a mission of exploration that turned into a problem of sorts like it would back when the show was on TV. While the other two films seemed off for some reason. Maybe it was the actors not quite fitting their roles, maybe it was too action-adventure and flashy? Maybe it was that Earth was the target, yet again. That worked once well and the second time they spent the majority of the movie in the 20th century. The follow up Next Gen movie to do that was First Contact and went for a middle ground. Still in our future, but their past and the threat was in that time period after the brief battle near the start of the film.
My head-canon? The various television series and movies of the 'Trek franchise are fictional representation of the actual future, as depicted by the renown science fiction author Benny Russell, who sold his ideas to a cop-turned-Hollywood producer, having been unable to publish his work after being institutionalized from a mental breakdown. ;-)
As for updating the look of the show: I don't see why not? I mean, there is a such thing has STAR WARS special editions, and an earlier post in this thread did have a video showing that it can be done...
As for updating the look of the show: I don't see why not? I mean, there is a such thing has STAR WARS special editions, and an earlier post in this thread did have a video showing that it can be done...
We've already had 100% authentic TOS sets, props, sounds, lighting, ships and uniforms in the New Voyages and Continues fan series'.
The idea that a new big budget series should strive to look the same as fan productions seems backward.
I don't expect any new TOS era trek to look like its set in the 1960's. A computer sounding like a mechanical robot, PADDS everywhere unless Earth and the rest of the Federation had some kind of Dark ages of tech, would have viewers laughing all the way to the standby switch muttering and this is meant to be set in the 23rd century?
As for continuity only if it relates to characters, I don't expect to see Geordi La Forge, Jean Luc Picard or any character from ST TNG unless they are long lived Vulcans and Klingons named Sarek and Koloth.
As for continuity only if it relates to characters, I don't expect to see Geordi La Forge, Jean Luc Picard or any character from ST TNG unless they are long lived Vulcans and Klingons named Sarek and Koloth.
Last edited:
Not all aspects of the SW SEs are bad. Cleaning up the shots, having more X-Wings (while on their approach to the Death Star), minor tweaks here and there...that's fine. It's when unnecessary stuff that is added to the scene (i.e. R2-DS hiding behind MORE rocks, putting in CGI Jabba the Hutt- that has to be retouched because the look has aged horribly -Greedo shooting FIRST, etc.) that gives the special editions its bad reputation. But what really soured those films to the general community was the insistence of GL wanting to re-work the films, and then telling those who complained about the finished product that they are wrong, that made that reputation worse than they needed to be.
At any rate, I think that TOS could get an updated look using just enough CGI to not overwhelm the original production. But, if they are going to do this, they better make sure to take into account the technical development of television. Right now, we've just entered 4K television screens. Even at normal HD, if you watched the old shows as is, you can tell how "cheap-looking" the production values are. Touch ups helped to fix those flaws, but, as we move forward, we might have to redo even the blu-rays. Might as well go for broke at that point, and just redo the shots themselves.
Besides, I think the TOS actors could use the royalty checks.
You're thinking it should literally look like it came from the 60's like those fan films.
Take Rogue One, for example. They blended 1977 and 2016 designs, and it didn't look hokey at all.
They were no more shallow, glitzy or popcorn than 9 of the films that preceded them.
Yes, critical success. Meaning the professional critics liked them. So not only possible, but actual.
Hard to say. I do know in a poll conduct here they were quite popular with "long term fans". I've been a fan since the 60's and I like them. Based on that poll, I think it was the "mid term" fans who were the most vocal in their objection. And fans who for some reason need everything to count, are resistant to change,can't parse that fiction is mutable and think moving forward can only be done with a calendar.
I have a completely unscientific theory, based on strictly anecdotal evidence, that it's more the TNG-era fans who are likely to have issues with the reboot, as opposed to us old-school TOS fans. I thought the new moves captured a lot of the fun and adventure of the original series, but it sometimes seems (to me at least) that many of the dissenters are applying TNG standards to movies based on TOS . . ..
Well, I don't think much of most of those movies, either. I think Trek has only worked on television. Since the Abrams things were as shallow and "popcorn" as you can get, though, at least three or so of the previous films beat them out.
Or maybe they're just action movies devoid of depth, SF ideas, and adult drama. Like many of the earlier ST movies in that respect, I admit. Abrams just took it all one nearly-surreal step further.
----------------------
You're thinking it should literally look like it came from the 60's like those fan films.
Take Rogue One, for example. They blended 1977 and 2016 designs, and it didn't look hokey at all.
Darth Vader literally built a giant Castle of Mopey Mordor-ian Angst, on the fiery Hell planet where he murdered his wife, burned alive, and had all his limbs cut off.*
*she says with all possible affection for Star Wars hokiness
Similar threads
