If you don't want to use the established visual designs for the 2250s setting, DON'T USE THE 2250s SETTING.
You seem to be confusing the 1960's attempt to make a 2250s setting visually, with how an actual 2250s setting would look visually.
The difference is key, and why your entire argument is objectively wrong and fallacious.
And you know how an actual 2250s environment would look?!? Your entire statement is the fallacy
2017's view of a 2250s set is no more accurate than 1960's was!
darthmeow's comment is absolutely nail-on-the-head accurate, especially with regards 'contemporizing' a historically established aesthetic.
Mad Men, for example. Pete Campbell never surfed dating apps on a smartphone for nudes and girls. When an era has an established look, productions have an implied obligation to represent it accurately. If the producers of Discovery wanted to go with a new look, fine, just write something different. If they wanted to go Kelvin Timeline, then they should have negotiated with Paramount to use that IP. If they wanted a generic sci-fi show, they could have just bought Space Command from Marc Zicree. But no, they wanted Trek, for the nostalgic hooks it has to the fanbase, because that will bring a guaranteed audience for their streaming service.
It wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't so blatantly obvious and laughable
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
And you know how an actual 2250s environment would look?!?
Nope, which is why I am not complaining about Discovery.
As technology advances, we change our perceptions on how the 2250's would look like, which invariably changes how the 2250s would be expressed in any show.
Just like how the newer Deus Ex games look far more advanced then the older ones, despite being set before them, because technology, and our view on the future, has changed.
This is inherent in every medium.
And as darthmeow said, our changing perceptions shouldn't change the presentation of the presentation They specifically chose to set it when they did, they set themself the challenge. That's what makes it even more of a failure. If they just said it was something new, fine. If they said it was Kelvin Timeline, also fine. But to try and pretend that what they're showing is the same time as The Cage, sorry, it's laughable. Unless they give some very good in-verse reasons for these differences, or just say prior to release that it's a reboot, I see this as being a show which will received a Very polarized reception.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Silverlobes, read Robert Heinlein's Space Cadet and see how he evisioned that era. Read Issac Asimov's Lucky Starr (written under the pseudonym Paul French) for the same general period. Then read some more contemporary sci-fi & see if they envision that era in even remotely the same way. Times change & so does the vision of the future from that era. Now wheres my flying car damn it.
Thanks for the recommendations, I'll try and check them out The comparison you're making though, isn't quite the same. A contemporary sci-fi writer certainly writes with the technology of their day, and so a modern writer will indeed portray 2020 in a different way to the way a writer in the 60s would portray 2020. The difference being though, that Star Trek's view of the 2250s has been shown, and these folks are making the claim to be writing in the era of Garth and Pike. They should be having it look like Axanar, not what they've done (unless they want to go down the Kelvin Timeline route, or, just come clean and say it's a remake/reboot, such as the Baywatch movie)
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The cool part about Heinlein's juveniles is that the actual science is made as accurate as possible. Heinlein told of one sequence in Space Cadet in which a particular orbital maneuver had to be accomplished. He and his wife Virginia worked out the ballistic calculations separately, on two rolls of butcher paper, then cross-checked each other's results so he could ensure he described it correctly.
(He also told of an occasion when he related the tale at a convention, to a physicist. The physicist asked, "Why didn't you just use a computer?"
"'My dear boy,' I replied (I don't usually call Ph.D.s 'my dear boy', as they impress me, but this was a special occasion), 'my dear boy... this was 1946.'
"He had the good grace to look abashed.")
He did use the old pulp ideas about Venus (even then, it was pretty well accepted that those weren't rain clouds girdling our sister world), but other than that he maintained scientific accuracy as understood in the 1940s.
TOS, on the other tentacle, never particularly concerned itself with scientific accuracy, preferring to tell a good story. TNG even more so. VOY pretty much used "scientific accuracy" as toilet paper, but also ignored the "good story" part most of the time.
That being said, this sad addiction to an obsolete aesthetic borders on the pathetic. Look, I grew up twiddling the ol' rabbit ears, pulling in the adventures of the realEnterprise on a big giant 16" screen (a console set, with an AM/FM radio and record player built in - Dad didn't splurge often, but when he did...). And I see absolutely nothing wrong with updating the aesthetic so that the bridge of a starship centuries in the future doesn't look less advanced than my own modern-day living room.
Silverlobes, read Robert Heinlein's Space Cadet and see how he evisioned that era. Read Issac Asimov's Lucky Starr (written under the pseudonym Paul French) for the same general period. Then read some more contemporary sci-fi & see if they envision that era in even remotely the same way. Times change & so does the vision of the future from that era. Now wheres my flying car damn it.
^This.
As times change, so do perceptions on how that the future will be, and its perfectly acceptable to change how the future is presented in a series like Star Trek to fit that because Star Trek was never anything more then an approximation, ta twas also severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made.
I'll repeat; our changing perceptions shouldn't change the presentation of the presentation
Something severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made: Like Star Wars.
The original movies showed us life under the Empire, the prequels showed us (an admitedly more advaced) life before the Empire (suggesting that there was economic and social stagnation, if not outright back-sliding under the Empire) What did The Force Awakens show us? The exact same aesthetics as in Return of the Jedi, with the exception of some slightly more refined Stormtrooper armor, and a new dish on the Millenium Falcon, and although I haven't seen Rogue One, I hear they maintained the same look for that too So no, new production capabilities doesn't neccesitate changing the look of the presentation, from the established norm
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Silverlobes, read Robert Heinlein's Space Cadet and see how he evisioned that era. Read Issac Asimov's Lucky Starr (written under the pseudonym Paul French) for the same general period. Then read some more contemporary sci-fi & see if they envision that era in even remotely the same way. Times change & so does the vision of the future from that era. Now wheres my flying car damn it.
^This.
As times change, so do perceptions on how that the future will be, and its perfectly acceptable to change how the future is presented in a series like Star Trek to fit that because Star Trek was never anything more then an approximation, ta twas also severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made.
I'll repeat; our changing perceptions shouldn't change the presentation of the presentation
Something severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made: Like Star Wars.
The original movies showed us life under the Empire, the prequels showed us (an admitedly more advaced) life before the Empire (suggesting that there was economic and social stagnation, if not outright back-sliding under the Empire) What did The Force Awakens show us? The exact same aesthetics as in Return of the Jedi, with the exception of some slightly more refined Stormtrooper armor, and a new dish on the Millenium Falcon, and although I haven't seen Rogue One, I hear they maintained the same look for that too So no, new production capabilities doesn't neccesitate changing the look of the presentation, from the established norm
There is an error in your logic, which has been pointed out time and time again: you assume the look of the failed pilot to be the actual appearance of the imaginary pre-TOS era. It is not. It is nothing more than how that era was imagined to look in 1964. In 2017 the new creators imagine the look differently. Neither is the 'correct' look for that era. Both are imagined by their creators to represent the exact same historical period, and both look different from what will actually come to be in that historical period.
Therefore, to say one inaccurate imagining is right and another innaccurate imagining is wrong when neither reflect the actual appearance of an imaginary historical era is illogical.
The cool part about Heinlein's juveniles is that the actual science is made as accurate as possible. Heinlein told of one sequence in Space Cadet in which a particular orbital maneuver had to be accomplished. He and his wife Virginia worked out the ballistic calculations separately, on two rolls of butcher paper, then cross-checked each other's results so he could ensure he described it correctly.
(He also told of an occasion when he related the tale at a convention, to a physicist. The physicist asked, "Why didn't you just use a computer?"
"'My dear boy,' I replied (I don't usually call Ph.D.s 'my dear boy', as they impress me, but this was a special occasion), 'my dear boy... this was 1946.'
"He had the good grace to look abashed.")
He did use the old pulp ideas about Venus (even then, it was pretty well accepted that those weren't rain clouds girdling our sister world), but other than that he maintained scientific accuracy as understood in the 1940s.
TOS, on the other tentacle, never particularly concerned itself with scientific accuracy, preferring to tell a good story. TNG even more so. VOY pretty much used "scientific accuracy" as toilet paper, but also ignored the "good story" part most of the time.
That being said, this sad addiction to an obsolete aesthetic borders on the pathetic. Look, I grew up twiddling the ol' rabbit ears, pulling in the adventures of the realEnterprise on a big giant 16" screen (a console set, with an AM/FM radio and record player built in - Dad didn't splurge often, but when he did...). And I see absolutely nothing wrong with updating the aesthetic so that the bridge of a starship centuries in the future doesn't look less advanced than my own modern-day living room.
Admiral Motti: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the rebels' hidden fort-...
[Vader makes a pinching motion and Motti starts choking]
Darth Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Silverlobes, read Robert Heinlein's Space Cadet and see how he evisioned that era. Read Issac Asimov's Lucky Starr (written under the pseudonym Paul French) for the same general period. Then read some more contemporary sci-fi & see if they envision that era in even remotely the same way. Times change & so does the vision of the future from that era. Now wheres my flying car damn it.
^This.
As times change, so do perceptions on how that the future will be, and its perfectly acceptable to change how the future is presented in a series like Star Trek to fit that because Star Trek was never anything more then an approximation, ta twas also severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made.
I'll repeat; our changing perceptions shouldn't change the presentation of the presentation
Something severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made: Like Star Wars.
The original movies showed us life under the Empire, the prequels showed us (an admitedly more advaced) life before the Empire (suggesting that there was economic and social stagnation, if not outright back-sliding under the Empire) What did The Force Awakens show us? The exact same aesthetics as in Return of the Jedi, with the exception of some slightly more refined Stormtrooper armor, and a new dish on the Millenium Falcon, and although I haven't seen Rogue One, I hear they maintained the same look for that too So no, new production capabilities doesn't neccesitate changing the look of the presentation, from the established norm
There is an error in your logic, which has been pointed out time and time again: you assume the look of the failed pilot to be the actual appearance of the imaginary pre-TOS era. It is not. It is nothing more than how that era was imagined to look in 1964.
It's not an assumption, because it was repeated in The Menagerie, thus becoming unquestionable canon. A look which was used in Axanar, and thus immediately identifiable as era-specific
In 2017 the new creators imagine the look differently. Neither is the 'correct' look for that era. Both are imagined by their creators to represent the exact same historical period, and both look different from what will actually come to be in that historical period.
Fine, then let them create their own new show, like The Orville, or Space Command, or Quests to the Stars, and let them depict it however they want. Wether what was produced in the 60s will be factually correct to how 2255 actually looks, isn't the point. The point, is that it set the precedent for that fictional universe's definition of 2255. And given that the Discovery producers went to all the trouble to say they're doing 10 years before Kirk, it's a tad counterproductive to then create something which goes against that defined standard. But as I said, they haven't created (or bought) a new show, because they need an established fanbase to buy into their streaming service, and they think the words 'Star Trek' all but guarantees an audience It's a cash-grab, riding on the name, nothing more.
Therefore, to say one inaccurate imagining is right and another innaccurate imagining is wrong when neither reflect the actual appearance of an imaginary historical era is illogical.
The term you're looking for, is 'internal consistency'
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Star Wars is set in the past & the prequels absolutely changed all the visual aesthetics. That aside, Trek is not special, its just another piece of fiction, and it does not have any special rules making it impossible to change or update the visuals. Finally, Trek will not survive without new fans, sadly those of us who have been around for decades are in diminishing numbers & we need new blood. Sure I'm getting my kids into it as I'm sure most other fans who are parents are, but expecting 20 year old fans of stuff like Avatar to find 1960s visuals interesting is basically the reason why Superman Returns failed, they copied the kryptonian visuals of the Christopher Reeve films & it failed. Man of Steel changed everything & despite some complaints about killing Zod (which Superman always does in comics or otherwise) the movie was absolutely a financial success.
And as I said, the difference in aesthetics is understandable as stagnation under the Empire, but that in itself, is irrelevant to the point I made, that The Force Awakened used the same aesthetics as Return of the Jedi (and I hear, so did Rogue One)
Personally, I prefered Superman Returns to Man of Steel, but to each his own
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
The Menagerie is just footage from the pilot, and confirms nothing but that Roddenberry wanted to use previously filmed material.
Your attachment to the 1964 look, and insistence that failure to adhere to it invalidates Discovery being in same time and continuum, is based on nothing more than your preference. Others have other preferences, including Discovery's producers.
Does orange phaser effects invalidate earlier blue phaser effects? Does it mean the orange phaser episodes must be in a different continuum? What about phasers which fire and burst like torpedoes compared to beam effects? These are all examples from within TOS, and not even examples from different series.
In fact, the aesthetics of Trek changed in ways both subtle and gross through out the runs of the various shows. To expect them to remain the same for a new show is unrealistic.
Axanar is a bad example of what should have been. It was always a nostalgia piece gaining its audience through a nostalgia play. Axanar had to conform to a particular look because it was an homage to the franchise, in much the same way that DS9's Tribble episode was an homage requiring attention to the established look of the 1960's show.
Discovery is a new Trek. It is reimagined in a new way. This is normal. Insistence that it be otherwise is akin to demanding Cylons always be brass, chrome, or bubblegum-machine headed. Certainly can't have Cylons that don't look like actors in overly cumbetsome suits. That's not Battlestar Galactica.
I think what some fans need to get used to is that not only are they are not now and not ever going to make the Trek they want to see with slavish fawning over the 50 year old televised stage plays, but that the people who do this for a living wrote that kind of fan off more than a decade ago. And as been rightly pointed out more than once, kvetching over the aesthetic when for many the heart of Trek is its philosophy is just kind of myopic to the point of pathetic.
The Menagerie is just footage from the pilot, and confirms nothing but that Roddenberry wanted to use previously filmed material.
Your attachment to the 1964 look, and insistence that failure to adhere to it invalidates Discovery being in same time and continuum, is based on nothing more than your preference. Others have other preferences, including Discovery's producers.
My preference has nothing to do with it. Don't try and shift the topic to me, to try and deflect from the topic itself.
Regardless of what The Menagerie was, it was still a canon episode, so don't try and diminish it by saying 'it was just recycled footage'. It reinforces the notion that the 2255 aesthetic for the Prime Universe had an established look.
Does orange phaser effects invalidate earlier blue phaser effects? Does it mean the orange phaser episodes must be in a different continuum? What about phasers which fire and burst like torpedoes compared to beam effects? These are all examples from within TOS, and not even examples from different series.
Strawman points which are irrelevant. Pointing out production inconsistencies, does not invalidate production consistencies.
In fact, the aesthetics of Trek changed in ways both subtle and gross through out the runs of the various shows. To expect them to remain the same for a new show is unrealistic.
The same strawman point as above, so the same answer as above: Pointing out production inconsistencies, does not invalidate production consistencies.
Axanar is a bad example of what should have been. It was always a nostalgia piece gaining its audience through a nostalgia play. Axanar had to conform to a particular look because it was an homage to the franchise, in much the same way that DS9's Tribble episode was an homage requiring attention to the established look of the 1960's show.
It's not a bad example at all, it's an excellent example, the simple reason it showed the attempt to depict a time before Kirk, and did so in a way which was immediately recognizable not just as 'Old Star Trek', but clearly 'of The Cage era', due to the uniforms worn. There's no question, absolutely no question whatsoever, about what it was, when it was set, which universe it was set in.
Discovery is a new Trek. It is reimagined in a new way.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Why? Because the producers went out of their way to state that this was at a specific point in Prime Timeline; That means if using that concept, then sticking to the particulars of that concept. If they wanted to just do New Trek, why all this 10 years before Kirk BS? Why not just do something new? Answer: They needed the nostalgia hook to secure viewers for their streaming service.
This is normal. Insistence that it be otherwise is akin to demanding Cylons always be brass, chrome, or bubblegum-machine headed. Certainly can't have Cylons that don't look like actors in overly cumbetsome suits. That's not Battlestar Galactica.
Flawed analogy: New BSG wasn't set in the same universe as original BSG. it was a complete reimagining of the concept, which was completely different to the original. For your example to be accurate, New Boomer and New Starbuck would have to be male characters
For the umpteenth time, I would have no problem with what Discovery is showing, if they were to simply say 'this is all new' or 'this is a reimagining' or 'this is a reboot' or 'this is the Kelvin Timeline'. But they haven't, they even tried that #FakeNews gaslighting BS when that behind the scenes pic of the Klingons was leaked: They can't be trusted to tell the truth (which on the flipside, makes their claim that this is Prime Timeline 10 years before Kirk questionable and suspect)
They released that footage of the Discovery at last year's con, and when it was shot down, they backtracked, and just claimed that it was a work in progress. That's the same short of spineless attitude that apparently made Suicide Squad such a sorry film (I haven't seen it, but almost everyone I've spoken to, has said it wasn't good)
Again, if they just wanted to release New Trek, why not just release New Trek? Why give all the 10 years before Kirk spiel? Because they were hoping would lure them viewers. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why is it so difficult to understand that they are doing what they're doing, to sell a product and make money for their networks? It's a cash-grab like the Baywatch movie, and if it ever gets released, then it deserves to be as poorly received, due to its dishonest promotional practices.
They could just have bought Space Command to be their flagship show, that would be something new and unique, but nooo, that won't have the same customer lure as something/anything called 'Star Trek'
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Silverlobes, read Robert Heinlein's Space Cadet and see how he evisioned that era. Read Issac Asimov's Lucky Starr (written under the pseudonym Paul French) for the same general period. Then read some more contemporary sci-fi & see if they envision that era in even remotely the same way. Times change & so does the vision of the future from that era. Now wheres my flying car damn it.
^This.
As times change, so do perceptions on how that the future will be, and its perfectly acceptable to change how the future is presented in a series like Star Trek to fit that because Star Trek was never anything more then an approximation, ta twas also severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made.
I'll repeat; our changing perceptions shouldn't change the presentation of the presentation
Something severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made: Like Star Wars.
The original movies showed us life under the Empire, the prequels showed us (an admitedly more advaced) life before the Empire (suggesting that there was economic and social stagnation, if not outright back-sliding under the Empire) What did The Force Awakens show us? The exact same aesthetics as in Return of the Jedi, with the exception of some slightly more refined Stormtrooper armor, and a new dish on the Millenium Falcon, and although I haven't seen Rogue One, I hear they maintained the same look for that too So no, new production capabilities doesn't neccesitate changing the look of the presentation, from the established norm
Yep, why is Star Trek in need of a 'reboot' in style, yet keeping it disco in Star Wars is okay?
The Menagerie is just footage from the pilot, and confirms nothing but that Roddenberry wanted to use previously filmed material.
Your attachment to the 1964 look, and insistence that failure to adhere to it invalidates Discovery being in same time and continuum, is based on nothing more than your preference. Others have other preferences, including Discovery's producers.
Does orange phaser effects invalidate earlier blue phaser effects? Does it mean the orange phaser episodes must be in a different continuum? What about phasers which fire and burst like torpedoes compared to beam effects? These are all examples from within TOS, and not even examples from different series.
In fact, the aesthetics of Trek changed in ways both subtle and gross through out the runs of the various shows. To expect them to remain the same for a new show is unrealistic.
Axanar is a bad example of what should have been. It was always a nostalgia piece gaining its audience through a nostalgia play. Axanar had to conform to a particular look because it was an homage to the franchise, in much the same way that DS9's Tribble episode was an homage requiring attention to the established look of the 1960's show.
Discovery is a new Trek. It is reimagined in a new way. This is normal. Insistence that it be otherwise is akin to demanding Cylons always be brass, chrome, or bubblegum-machine headed. Certainly can't have Cylons that don't look like actors in overly cumbetsome suits. That's not Battlestar Galactica.
Have you watched the NEW BSG? Or Caprica? How about Blood and Chrome? The Cylons in these were of both types. And their was a damn good reason. And Caprica went a step further with an even clunkier look to them.
I'm waiting to see how y'all tie all of these arguments in to the thread topic.
Star Trek Online Volunteer Community Moderator and Resident She-Wolf
Community Moderators are Unpaid Volunteers and NOT Employees of Gearbox/Cryptic
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
The Menagerie is just footage from the pilot, and confirms nothing but that Roddenberry wanted to use previously filmed material.
Your attachment to the 1964 look, and insistence that failure to adhere to it invalidates Discovery being in same time and continuum, is based on nothing more than your preference. Others have other preferences, including Discovery's producers.
My preference has nothing to do with it. Don't try and shift the topic to me, to try and deflect from the topic itself.
Regardless of what The Menagerie was, it was still a canon episode, so don't try and diminish it by saying 'it was just recycled footage'. It reinforces the notion that the 2255 aesthetic for the Prime Universe had an established look.
Does orange phaser effects invalidate earlier blue phaser effects? Does it mean the orange phaser episodes must be in a different continuum? What about phasers which fire and burst like torpedoes compared to beam effects? These are all examples from within TOS, and not even examples from different series.
Strawman points which are irrelevant. Pointing out production inconsistencies, does not invalidate production consistencies.
In fact, the aesthetics of Trek changed in ways both subtle and gross through out the runs of the various shows. To expect them to remain the same for a new show is unrealistic.
The same strawman point as above, so the same answer as above: Pointing out production inconsistencies, does not invalidate production consistencies.
Axanar is a bad example of what should have been. It was always a nostalgia piece gaining its audience through a nostalgia play. Axanar had to conform to a particular look because it was an homage to the franchise, in much the same way that DS9's Tribble episode was an homage requiring attention to the established look of the 1960's show.
It's not a bad example at all, it's an excellent example, the simple reason it showed the attempt to depict a time before Kirk, and did so in a way which was immediately recognizable not just as 'Old Star Trek', but clearly 'of The Cage era', due to the uniforms worn. There's no question, absolutely no question whatsoever, about what it was, when it was set, which universe it was set in.
Discovery is a new Trek. It is reimagined in a new way.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Why? Because the producers went out of their way to state that this was at a specific point in Prime Timeline; That means if using that concept, then sticking to the particulars of that concept. If they wanted to just do New Trek, why all this 10 years before Kirk BS? Why not just do something new? Answer: They needed the nostalgia hook to secure viewers for their streaming service.
This is normal. Insistence that it be otherwise is akin to demanding Cylons always be brass, chrome, or bubblegum-machine headed. Certainly can't have Cylons that don't look like actors in overly cumbetsome suits. That's not Battlestar Galactica.
Flawed analogy: New BSG wasn't set in the same universe as original BSG. it was a complete reimagining of the concept, which was completely different to the original. For your example to be accurate, New Boomer and New Starbuck would have to be male characters
For the umpteenth time, I would have no problem with what Discovery is showing, if they were to simply say 'this is all new' or 'this is a reimagining' or 'this is a reboot' or 'this is the Kelvin Timeline'. But they haven't, they even tried that #FakeNews gaslighting BS when that behind the scenes pic of the Klingons was leaked: They can't be trusted to tell the truth (which on the flipside, makes their claim that this is Prime Timeline 10 years before Kirk questionable and suspect)
They released that footage of the Discovery at last year's con, and when it was shot down, they backtracked, and just claimed that it was a work in progress. That's the same short of spineless attitude that apparently made Suicide Squad such a sorry film (I haven't seen it, but almost everyone I've spoken to, has said it wasn't good)
Again, if they just wanted to release New Trek, why not just release New Trek? Why give all the 10 years before Kirk spiel? Because they were hoping would lure them viewers. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why is it so difficult to understand that they are doing what they're doing, to sell a product and make money for their networks? It's a cash-grab like the Baywatch movie, and if it ever gets released, then it deserves to be as poorly received, due to its dishonest promotional practices.
They could just have bought Space Command to be their flagship show, that would be something new and unique, but nooo, that won't have the same customer lure as something/anything called 'Star Trek'
Space Command went off the rails a long time ago. It had great potential but took a hard u turn. Ask Doug Drexler and Steve Neill about that. They both did a lot of design and propwork for it but the forces that be decided to turn it into something else very different from the premise used to kick start the project. I have watched the teasers and it is very much like the bad campy shows like Buck Rogers was in the 80's and it's not by intent either. Seriously it's taking itself way to seriously for what it is unlike Matt Mercury which is an homage to how the future used to be. Oh yeah watch for Doug Drexler in that by the way. It's on OSI74 on Roku and another Roku channel I think TubiTv.
The Menagerie is just footage from the pilot, and confirms nothing but that Roddenberry wanted to use previously filmed material.
Your attachment to the 1964 look, and insistence that failure to adhere to it invalidates Discovery being in same time and continuum, is based on nothing more than your preference. Others have other preferences, including Discovery's producers.
My preference has nothing to do with it. Don't try and shift the topic to me, to try and deflect from the topic itself.
Regardless of what The Menagerie was, it was still a canon episode, so don't try and diminish it by saying 'it was just recycled footage'. It reinforces the notion that the 2255 aesthetic for the Prime Universe had an established look.
Does orange phaser effects invalidate earlier blue phaser effects? Does it mean the orange phaser episodes must be in a different continuum? What about phasers which fire and burst like torpedoes compared to beam effects? These are all examples from within TOS, and not even examples from different series.
Strawman points which are irrelevant. Pointing out production inconsistencies, does not invalidate production consistencies.
In fact, the aesthetics of Trek changed in ways both subtle and gross through out the runs of the various shows. To expect them to remain the same for a new show is unrealistic.
The same strawman point as above, so the same answer as above: Pointing out production inconsistencies, does not invalidate production consistencies.
Axanar is a bad example of what should have been. It was always a nostalgia piece gaining its audience through a nostalgia play. Axanar had to conform to a particular look because it was an homage to the franchise, in much the same way that DS9's Tribble episode was an homage requiring attention to the established look of the 1960's show.
It's not a bad example at all, it's an excellent example, the simple reason it showed the attempt to depict a time before Kirk, and did so in a way which was immediately recognizable not just as 'Old Star Trek', but clearly 'of The Cage era', due to the uniforms worn. There's no question, absolutely no question whatsoever, about what it was, when it was set, which universe it was set in.
Discovery is a new Trek. It is reimagined in a new way.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Why? Because the producers went out of their way to state that this was at a specific point in Prime Timeline; That means if using that concept, then sticking to the particulars of that concept. If they wanted to just do New Trek, why all this 10 years before Kirk BS? Why not just do something new? Answer: They needed the nostalgia hook to secure viewers for their streaming service.
This is normal. Insistence that it be otherwise is akin to demanding Cylons always be brass, chrome, or bubblegum-machine headed. Certainly can't have Cylons that don't look like actors in overly cumbetsome suits. That's not Battlestar Galactica.
Flawed analogy: New BSG wasn't set in the same universe as original BSG. it was a complete reimagining of the concept, which was completely different to the original. For your example to be accurate, New Boomer and New Starbuck would have to be male characters
For the umpteenth time, I would have no problem with what Discovery is showing, if they were to simply say 'this is all new' or 'this is a reimagining' or 'this is a reboot' or 'this is the Kelvin Timeline'. But they haven't, they even tried that #FakeNews gaslighting BS when that behind the scenes pic of the Klingons was leaked: They can't be trusted to tell the truth (which on the flipside, makes their claim that this is Prime Timeline 10 years before Kirk questionable and suspect)
They released that footage of the Discovery at last year's con, and when it was shot down, they backtracked, and just claimed that it was a work in progress. That's the same short of spineless attitude that apparently made Suicide Squad such a sorry film (I haven't seen it, but almost everyone I've spoken to, has said it wasn't good)
Again, if they just wanted to release New Trek, why not just release New Trek? Why give all the 10 years before Kirk spiel? Because they were hoping would lure them viewers. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why is it so difficult to understand that they are doing what they're doing, to sell a product and make money for their networks? It's a cash-grab like the Baywatch movie, and if it ever gets released, then it deserves to be as poorly received, due to its dishonest promotional practices.
They could just have bought Space Command to be their flagship show, that would be something new and unique, but nooo, that won't have the same customer lure as something/anything called 'Star Trek'
Space Command went off the rails a long time ago. It had great potential but took a hard u turn. Ask Doug Drexler and Steve Neill about that. They both did a lot of design and propwork for it but the forces that be decided to turn it into something else very different from the premise used to kick start the project. I have watched the teasers and it is very much like the bad campy shows like Buck Rogers was in the 80's and it's not by intent either. Seriously it's taking itself way to seriously for what it is unlike Matt Mercury which is an homage to how the future used to be. Oh yeah watch for Doug Drexler in that by the way. It's on OSI74 on Roku and another Roku channel I think TubiTv.
Oh for sure, 100% trainwreck of a project as far as completion/release goes, I'm simply using the title as an example of 'a new sci-fi show', which CBS could have picked up to use as their lure for their streaming service
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Silverlobes has it exactly right, this is a bait and switch. The producers are saying it's one thing and then making something else entirely. They're trying to satisfy the old fanbase by saying it's Prime Timeline while simultaneously chasing the nu-Trek audience with JJ Abrams style visuals. It's inherently dishonest.
When you make a prequel or a period piece, you commit yourself to accurately recreating the past. If you don't want to do that, don't make it a prequel! Nobody put a gun to their head and said "make this ten years before Kirk in the Prime Universe, or else!". They chose that themselves, and failed to deliver on it. They made that promise of their own volition, we have every right to call them on breaking it.
This is both dishonest marketing and an unforced error on their part, and they deserve no slack for it.
Thank you, and yes, absolutely so
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Silverlobes, read Robert Heinlein's Space Cadet and see how he evisioned that era. Read Issac Asimov's Lucky Starr (written under the pseudonym Paul French) for the same general period. Then read some more contemporary sci-fi & see if they envision that era in even remotely the same way. Times change & so does the vision of the future from that era. Now wheres my flying car damn it.
^This.
As times change, so do perceptions on how that the future will be, and its perfectly acceptable to change how the future is presented in a series like Star Trek to fit that because Star Trek was never anything more then an approximation, ta twas also severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made.
I'll repeat; our changing perceptions shouldn't change the presentation of the presentation
Something severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made: Like Star Wars.
The original movies showed us life under the Empire, the prequels showed us (an admitedly more advaced) life before the Empire (suggesting that there was economic and social stagnation, if not outright back-sliding under the Empire) What did The Force Awakens show us? The exact same aesthetics as in Return of the Jedi, with the exception of some slightly more refined Stormtrooper armor, and a new dish on the Millenium Falcon, and although I haven't seen Rogue One, I hear they maintained the same look for that too So no, new production capabilities doesn't neccesitate changing the look of the presentation, from the established norm
Yep, why is Star Trek in need of a 'reboot' in style, yet keeping it disco in Star Wars is okay?
"I fight for the Users!" - Tron
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Comments
And you know how an actual 2250s environment would look?!? Your entire statement is the fallacy
2017's view of a 2250s set is no more accurate than 1960's was!
darthmeow's comment is absolutely nail-on-the-head accurate, especially with regards 'contemporizing' a historically established aesthetic.
Mad Men, for example. Pete Campbell never surfed dating apps on a smartphone for nudes and girls. When an era has an established look, productions have an implied obligation to represent it accurately. If the producers of Discovery wanted to go with a new look, fine, just write something different. If they wanted to go Kelvin Timeline, then they should have negotiated with Paramount to use that IP. If they wanted a generic sci-fi show, they could have just bought Space Command from Marc Zicree. But no, they wanted Trek, for the nostalgic hooks it has to the fanbase, because that will bring a guaranteed audience for their streaming service.
It wouldn't be so bad, if it wasn't so blatantly obvious and laughable
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
(He also told of an occasion when he related the tale at a convention, to a physicist. The physicist asked, "Why didn't you just use a computer?"
"'My dear boy,' I replied (I don't usually call Ph.D.s 'my dear boy', as they impress me, but this was a special occasion), 'my dear boy... this was 1946.'
"He had the good grace to look abashed.")
He did use the old pulp ideas about Venus (even then, it was pretty well accepted that those weren't rain clouds girdling our sister world), but other than that he maintained scientific accuracy as understood in the 1940s.
TOS, on the other tentacle, never particularly concerned itself with scientific accuracy, preferring to tell a good story. TNG even more so. VOY pretty much used "scientific accuracy" as toilet paper, but also ignored the "good story" part most of the time.
That being said, this sad addiction to an obsolete aesthetic borders on the pathetic. Look, I grew up twiddling the ol' rabbit ears, pulling in the adventures of the real Enterprise on a big giant 16" screen (a console set, with an AM/FM radio and record player built in - Dad didn't splurge often, but when he did...). And I see absolutely nothing wrong with updating the aesthetic so that the bridge of a starship centuries in the future doesn't look less advanced than my own modern-day living room.
Something severely limited by budgetary restraints of the era it was made: Like Star Wars.
The original movies showed us life under the Empire, the prequels showed us (an admitedly more advaced) life before the Empire (suggesting that there was economic and social stagnation, if not outright back-sliding under the Empire) What did The Force Awakens show us? The exact same aesthetics as in Return of the Jedi, with the exception of some slightly more refined Stormtrooper armor, and a new dish on the Millenium Falcon, and although I haven't seen Rogue One, I hear they maintained the same look for that too
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
There is an error in your logic, which has been pointed out time and time again: you assume the look of the failed pilot to be the actual appearance of the imaginary pre-TOS era. It is not. It is nothing more than how that era was imagined to look in 1964. In 2017 the new creators imagine the look differently. Neither is the 'correct' look for that era. Both are imagined by their creators to represent the exact same historical period, and both look different from what will actually come to be in that historical period.
Therefore, to say one inaccurate imagining is right and another innaccurate imagining is wrong when neither reflect the actual appearance of an imaginary historical era is illogical.
[Vader makes a pinching motion and Motti starts choking]
Darth Vader: I find your lack of faith disturbing.
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Fine, then let them create their own new show, like The Orville, or Space Command, or Quests to the Stars, and let them depict it however they want. Wether what was produced in the 60s will be factually correct to how 2255 actually looks, isn't the point. The point, is that it set the precedent for that fictional universe's definition of 2255. And given that the Discovery producers went to all the trouble to say they're doing 10 years before Kirk, it's a tad counterproductive to then create something which goes against that defined standard. But as I said, they haven't created (or bought) a new show, because they need an established fanbase to buy into their streaming service, and they think the words 'Star Trek' all but guarantees an audience
The term you're looking for, is 'internal consistency'
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Personally, I prefered Superman Returns to Man of Steel, but to each his own
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Your attachment to the 1964 look, and insistence that failure to adhere to it invalidates Discovery being in same time and continuum, is based on nothing more than your preference. Others have other preferences, including Discovery's producers.
Does orange phaser effects invalidate earlier blue phaser effects? Does it mean the orange phaser episodes must be in a different continuum? What about phasers which fire and burst like torpedoes compared to beam effects? These are all examples from within TOS, and not even examples from different series.
In fact, the aesthetics of Trek changed in ways both subtle and gross through out the runs of the various shows. To expect them to remain the same for a new show is unrealistic.
Axanar is a bad example of what should have been. It was always a nostalgia piece gaining its audience through a nostalgia play. Axanar had to conform to a particular look because it was an homage to the franchise, in much the same way that DS9's Tribble episode was an homage requiring attention to the established look of the 1960's show.
Discovery is a new Trek. It is reimagined in a new way. This is normal. Insistence that it be otherwise is akin to demanding Cylons always be brass, chrome, or bubblegum-machine headed. Certainly can't have Cylons that don't look like actors in overly cumbetsome suits. That's not Battlestar Galactica.
Regardless of what The Menagerie was, it was still a canon episode, so don't try and diminish it by saying 'it was just recycled footage'. It reinforces the notion that the 2255 aesthetic for the Prime Universe had an established look.
Strawman points which are irrelevant. Pointing out production inconsistencies, does not invalidate production consistencies.
The same strawman point as above, so the same answer as above: Pointing out production inconsistencies, does not invalidate production consistencies.
It's not a bad example at all, it's an excellent example, the simple reason it showed the attempt to depict a time before Kirk, and did so in a way which was immediately recognizable not just as 'Old Star Trek', but clearly 'of The Cage era', due to the uniforms worn. There's no question, absolutely no question whatsoever, about what it was, when it was set, which universe it was set in.
Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Why? Because the producers went out of their way to state that this was at a specific point in Prime Timeline; That means if using that concept, then sticking to the particulars of that concept. If they wanted to just do New Trek, why all this 10 years before Kirk BS? Why not just do something new? Answer: They needed the nostalgia hook to secure viewers for their streaming service.
Flawed analogy: New BSG wasn't set in the same universe as original BSG. it was a complete reimagining of the concept, which was completely different to the original. For your example to be accurate, New Boomer and New Starbuck would have to be male characters
For the umpteenth time, I would have no problem with what Discovery is showing, if they were to simply say 'this is all new' or 'this is a reimagining' or 'this is a reboot' or 'this is the Kelvin Timeline'. But they haven't, they even tried that #FakeNews gaslighting BS when that behind the scenes pic of the Klingons was leaked: They can't be trusted to tell the truth (which on the flipside, makes their claim that this is Prime Timeline 10 years before Kirk questionable and suspect)
They released that footage of the Discovery at last year's con, and when it was shot down, they backtracked, and just claimed that it was a work in progress. That's the same short of spineless attitude that apparently made Suicide Squad such a sorry film (I haven't seen it, but almost everyone I've spoken to, has said it wasn't good)
Again, if they just wanted to release New Trek, why not just release New Trek? Why give all the 10 years before Kirk spiel? Because they were hoping would lure them viewers. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp? Why is it so difficult to understand that they are doing what they're doing, to sell a product and make money for their networks? It's a cash-grab like the Baywatch movie, and if it ever gets released, then it deserves to be as poorly received, due to its dishonest promotional practices.
They could just have bought Space Command to be their flagship show, that would be something new and unique, but nooo, that won't have the same customer lure as something/anything called 'Star Trek'
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
Yep, why is Star Trek in need of a 'reboot' in style, yet keeping it disco in Star Wars is okay?
Have you watched the NEW BSG? Or Caprica? How about Blood and Chrome? The Cylons in these were of both types. And their was a damn good reason. And Caprica went a step further with an even clunkier look to them.
Views and Opinions May Not Reflect the Views and Opinions of Gearbox/Cryptic
Moderation Problems/Issues? Please contact the Community Manager
Terms of Service / Community Rules and Policies / FCT
Facebook / Twitter / Twitch
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth
"I was here before you, I will be here after you are gone. I am here, regardless of your acknowledgement or acceptance..." - The Truth