"The meaning of victory is not to merely defeat your enemy but to destroy him, to completely eradicate him from living memory, to leave no remnant of his endeavours, to crush utterly his achievement and remove from all record his every trace of existence. From that defeat no enemy can ever recover. That is the meaning of victory."
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Oh TRIBBLE just let it go. It looks different deal with it...
^ Memory Alpha.org is not canon. It's a open wiki with arbitrary rules. Only what can be cited from an episode is. ^
"No. Men do not roar. Women roar. Then they hurl heavy objects... and claw at you." -Worf, son of Mogh
"A filthy, mangy beast, but in its bony breast beat the heart of a warrior" - "faithful" (...) "but ever-ready to follow the call of the wild." - Martok, about a Targ
"That pig smelled horrid. A sweet-sour, extremely pungent odor. I showered and showered, and it took me a week to get rid of it!" - Robert Justman, appreciating Emmy-Lou
The technology you see is ours not theres so its actually our fault for being too dumb to see all of what TOS was. Another thing tho is all of the other series came out like we have seen tv shows for decades but this is falling under the new shows under the streaming era so its like you want to like it but it doesn't feel right like it did in all the other series. That is my take on it we actually don't hate it but its hard to get used to something new in a totally different way than before.
because...they want the new cash-cow to be successful?
Each incarnation of Star Trek has done well enough on its own and has been able to carve out its own fan base without needing to trash TOS. The idea of it really makes no sense.
The first problem here is the claim that Discovery is "trashing" TOS. Not using the same aesthetics is not "trashing" something.
And tellling stories that we haven't heard before that happened before TOS isn't trashing TOS either.
Trashing TOS would be something like "Kirk never commanded the Enterprise, he was in an asylum for the criminally insane and his delusion was being in charge of a ship" or "anyone that liked Spock is a moron".
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
The first problem here is the claim that Discovery is "trashing" TOS. Not using the same aesthetics is not "trashing" something.
You are seriously incorrect here.
Any fictional setting is composed of differences between "our world" and the "fictional setting". Those differences include specific lore and specific changes to physical laws, characters, themes, tone and appearance. Any combination of these things is why someone would become invested in your fiction. Any combination is a valid reason to be invested.
When previous showrunners explored the TOS setting in their show, they went to extreme lengths to make the TOS setting look "authentic". Not only did this set the expectation that each era was it's own time, but it said to the audience "those things that got you invested in Star Trek are inviolate". Whether the reason is characters, laws and lore, themes, tone or appearance.
Both Berg and Harberts have said that they "must" change the appearance of Star Trek: Discovery. Why? Because the old appearance is somehow deficient, unpalatable or wrong. Harberts has gone on record stating "we rely heavily on holograms, rather than the old viewscreens, because it makes the show more contemporary". Viewscreens, push buttons, primary colors, brightly lit sets, straight camera angles, these things are all BAD and must be corrected. Whatever it is that got YOU invested in Star Trek is irrelevant. This is what "the powers that be" have determined what Star Trek will be during this period in time in the Star Trek Universe. It is a reboot in all but name.
The show's creators do not care what got you invested in Star Trek. They do not care what you think, and have said so. Aaron Harberts has gone on record saying "I avoid listening to fan feedback, because I cannot take the pressure and I don't want to second guess myself". He even went on to talk about a time Soneqa Martin-Green read outloud some critique of the show and he found it "extremely uncomfortable and inappropriate".
These creators want to create their product and if you don't like it, for whatever reason, you can get out of THEIR fandom because they are here to "fix" old busted Trek and you are just holding them back.
When previous showrunners explored the TOS setting in their show, they went to extreme lengths to make the TOS setting look "authentic". Not only did this set the expectation that each era was it's own time, but it said to the audience "those things that got you invested in Star Trek are inviolate". Whether the reason is characters, laws and lore, themes, tone or appearance.
And this is true. Every show that traveled into the past portrayed it as close to the original as possible.
Since this a science fiction setting, there is nothing wrong with future installments looking unique and futuristic. The issue is going back to 18th century England and everyone has an Iphone because "Iphones are cool and it makes sense that if they had the technology, everyone would have an Iphone" without taking into account how that technology would drastically change the time period beyond the aesthetic of everyone being on 18th century Twitter. It would cease to be the 18th century as we know it and become something entirely different, which could very well lead to a very different future. But none of that matters because "well, the 18th century looks like garbage and is much improved with everyone having an Iphone".
I would like to point out that CBS does NOT want to snuff out any Trek show.
Spock and the starship Enterprise were never intended to be in Star Trek: Discovery beyond a couple of mentions. Writer/Director Akiva Goldsmith (the guy who was totally gung-ho to be on the STDZ team before he left saying "never again") stated that Spock would "never" be on the show outside of being mentioned and the same went for the Enterprise.
Clearly, SOMETHING changed and it was a surprise to the creators. Alex Kurtzman said "our biggest challenge going into season 2 is trying to figure out why the Enterprise was there and what it means going forward into the second season". My personal opinion is that CBS wants "more onscreen TOS aesthetic and characters" probably for merchandising reasons or possibly "brand recognition". Lots of people know who Spock is or have a passing familiarity with the starship Enterprise.
In any case, I believe CBS wants to preserve TOS and the current curators of Star Trek: Discovery are only interested in thier creative vision.
The first problem here is the claim that Discovery is "trashing" TOS. Not using the same aesthetics is not "trashing" something.
You are seriously incorrect here.
Any fictional setting is composed of differences between "our world" and the "fictional setting". Those differences include specific lore and specific changes to physical laws, characters, themes, tone and appearance. Any combination of these things is why someone would become invested in your fiction. Any combination is a valid reason to be invested.
When previous showrunners explored the TOS setting in their show, they went to extreme lengths to make the TOS setting look "authentic". Not only did this set the expectation that each era was it's own time, but it said to the audience "those things that got you invested in Star Trek are inviolate". Whether the reason is characters, laws and lore, themes, tone or appearance.
Both Berg and Harberts have said that they "must" change the appearance of Star Trek: Discovery. Why? Because the old appearance is somehow deficient, unpalatable or wrong. Harberts has gone on record stating "we rely heavily on holograms, rather than the old viewscreens, because it makes the show more contemporary". Viewscreens, push buttons, primary colors, brightly lit sets, straight camera angles, these things are all BAD and must be corrected. Whatever it is that got YOU invested in Star Trek is irrelevant. This is what "the powers that be" have determined what Star Trek will be during this period in time in the Star Trek Universe. It is a reboot in all but name.
The show's creators do not care what got you invested in Star Trek. They do not care what you think, and have said so. Aaron Harberts has gone on record saying "I avoid listening to fan feedback, because I cannot take the pressure and I don't want to second guess myself". He even went on to talk about a time Soneqa Martin-Green read outloud some critique of the show and he found it "extremely uncomfortable and inappropriate".
These creators want to create their product and if you don't like it, for whatever reason, you can get out of THEIR fandom because they are here to "fix" old busted Trek and you are just holding them back.
No, I don't think I am seriously incorrect there.
I am certain that the people involved in TOS made the best thing possible at the time, and sometimes possibly even ground-breaking. But every show is limited to what is possible within its technical and budgetary limitations.
One important objective for them was certainly to look futuristic to the audience. It wasn't necessarily about: "This is how the Enterprise really has to look. But this is how we can make it so that it does look futuristic today, as we make it."
Should their choice in ow to accomplish a futuristic look be more important than their overriding objective of that look? Did they really care that they used trigger switches and what not, or did they do it because the ones they used looked the most futuristic among the options they could implement?
The TOS movies, the TNG movies and so on all tried to do the same -how can we create a futuristic look. There wasn't really any other need to change the look at all. If they wanted, they could have recreated the original sets, and it could reasonably be argued that since this is what the franchise looked then, it should keep looking that way. But they definitely did not, and I don't think it was ever seriously considered.
With TNG , they gave us an easy handwave to explain why things looked different: "It's a century later". But that wasn't the reason at all to change the look. THe reason was because TV, movies and the audience have moved on in the past decades and new things were possible and new things were expected.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I go with the 'reasonable man expectation'. If you had a friend, who never was a Trekkie, wasn't exposed to the previous 50 years, and showed them, back to back, the pilot episodes of these two series, then asked him, "Which one came first in the timeline, and are they the same universe?"
His answer would likely be "No, they're not in the same universe, unless Discovery is WAYY in the future of Star Trek."
not the past, the future..
and that, right there, is what the beef is. It doesn't look, feel, or act contemporary in any way, shape, or form except for stated dates and name-drops.
And this is my main problem with Discovery that I have mentioned a few times already. Get rid of the name drops and rename the Klingons to some other alien race and we have a Star Trek series set in the late 24th Century or early 25th Century. It should not be that easy to turn a prequel into a sequel and that is why Discovery is a lousy prequel while Enterprise would have been a great prequel if they removed all scenes featuring the Temporal Cold War.
But that wasn't the reason at all to change the look. THe reason was because TV, movies and the audience have moved on in the past decades and new things were possible and new things were expected.
Wrong.
Star Trek occurs in a fictional universe. That fiction established it's own appearance, look and lore. Our reality does not have a "world war 3" or a "eungenics war". The entire fiction is a "what if" parallel universe with it's own history, technological advancement, and design aesthetic.
When someone becomes invested in your fiction it is because of: setting, lore and physical laws, tone, themes, characters, appearance or any combination of the above. To retroactively go back to that "historical period" within the setting and change any portion of the fiction is a clear statement: "Whatever reason got you invested in this fictional setting is invalid". It says to some portion of your fans "this is not for you, it is for someone else, who does not yet currently exist". It cheapens the entire work, as it just highlights how this is a product, and as such, is not worth becoming invested in. It will simply be replaced in the next decade by the next "new thing". It has no stability, no reliability and if you invest yourself in it, you are a fool. It says "no one should care about this work beyond a t-shirt or a box of cereal because that is all there is to it. A means to sell products, not tell stories".
But that wasn't the reason at all to change the look. THe reason was because TV, movies and the audience have moved on in the past decades and new things were possible and new things were expected.
Wrong.
Star Trek occurs in a fictional universe. That fiction established it's own appearance, look and lore. Our reality does not have a "world war 3" or a "eungenics war". The entire fiction is a "what if" parallel universe with it's own history, technological advancement, and design aesthetic.
When someone becomes invested in your fiction it is because of: setting, lore and physical laws, tone, themes, characters, appearance or any combination of the above. To retroactively go back to that "historical period" within the setting and change any portion of the fiction is a clear statement: "Whatever reason got you invested in this fictional setting is invalid".
No, it just says: "If the looks is what got you, then sorry." But what got me to invest into Star Trek was its message, its characters, and the stories, and they don't really change based on things like visuals. Sure, if you liked the old cardboard sets and feel that's important, that is up to you, but not reusing these aesthetics doesn't mean they don't care for what came before or they want to make you forget or drive some fans out.
The Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downy Junior and the Sherlock Holmes series with Benedict Cumberbatch were all made to (also) appeal to Sherlock Holmes fans and they were not made to "trash" on the Sherlock Holmes movies, plays and novels that came before where things looked different. Of course, not every fan of Sherlock Holmes likes all of the different interpretations of him, but that doesn't mean they were made to insult him or to drive him out.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Except Star Trek isn't real. It's not a real time or a real place or real people, so it isn't the same as iPhones in 18th century England of our own real history.
False equivalence.
The setting has it's own lore and history. It was established. retroactively changing the setting is the exact same thing. Otherwise, it is not a story, a work of art. It is a product, to be consumed and forgotten. There is no impact on the audience as telling a story is secondary to making a product.
Previous show runners more than likely stuck to the original look and feel out of budgetary constraints than anything else and were catering to the nostalgia of the TOS fanbase.
False.
In fact, in the case of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine it was both expensive and time consuming to go back in time for our heroes to play with tribbles.
Star Trek looked "futuristic" for the 1960's, just like Flash Gordon looked futuristic in 1934. Neither of them really look that futuristic now when compared to modern technology. It makes perfect sense for an IP owner to update their property to cater to more modern audiences. That's how they endure and stay relevant.
False, again. Particularly in the case of a science fiction based setting.
The show's creators could very easily tell a story during or after the movie Nemisis and impress the audience with all sorts of scientific wonders without vandalizing the earlier periods in Trek history.
With that said, I don't begrudge anyone who pines for the original aesthetic as that is a matter of preference.
If you like or dislike the look of something is a sign of personal investment. If nothing visually appeals to you over the different Star Trek shows then of course there is going to be some disconnect. Nothing wrong with it. However, there are many components to a fiction that could get someone invested and the appearance is certainly one of them.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Its entire style. Every episode of Discovery could have easily have been set post-Nemesis by just removing the name drops and calling the Klingons as some new alien race. Enterprise felt like it was set before the Birth of the Federation in the 22nd Century. A prequel is supposed to feel like it is a prequel while there is nothing in Discovery that makes it feel like a prequel.
Comments
A theory that might explain the timeline changes
-Lord Commander Solar Macharius
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
More like CBS wants to try and snuff out TOS.
My character Tsin'xing
The first problem here is the claim that Discovery is "trashing" TOS. Not using the same aesthetics is not "trashing" something.
And tellling stories that we haven't heard before that happened before TOS isn't trashing TOS either.
Trashing TOS would be something like "Kirk never commanded the Enterprise, he was in an asylum for the criminally insane and his delusion was being in charge of a ship" or "anyone that liked Spock is a moron".
Any fictional setting is composed of differences between "our world" and the "fictional setting". Those differences include specific lore and specific changes to physical laws, characters, themes, tone and appearance. Any combination of these things is why someone would become invested in your fiction. Any combination is a valid reason to be invested.
When previous showrunners explored the TOS setting in their show, they went to extreme lengths to make the TOS setting look "authentic". Not only did this set the expectation that each era was it's own time, but it said to the audience "those things that got you invested in Star Trek are inviolate". Whether the reason is characters, laws and lore, themes, tone or appearance.
Both Berg and Harberts have said that they "must" change the appearance of Star Trek: Discovery. Why? Because the old appearance is somehow deficient, unpalatable or wrong. Harberts has gone on record stating "we rely heavily on holograms, rather than the old viewscreens, because it makes the show more contemporary". Viewscreens, push buttons, primary colors, brightly lit sets, straight camera angles, these things are all BAD and must be corrected. Whatever it is that got YOU invested in Star Trek is irrelevant. This is what "the powers that be" have determined what Star Trek will be during this period in time in the Star Trek Universe. It is a reboot in all but name.
The show's creators do not care what got you invested in Star Trek. They do not care what you think, and have said so. Aaron Harberts has gone on record saying "I avoid listening to fan feedback, because I cannot take the pressure and I don't want to second guess myself". He even went on to talk about a time Soneqa Martin-Green read outloud some critique of the show and he found it "extremely uncomfortable and inappropriate".
These creators want to create their product and if you don't like it, for whatever reason, you can get out of THEIR fandom because they are here to "fix" old busted Trek and you are just holding them back.
At no point did I say "shows that happen later in the fictional setting's time CAN NEVER look more advanced". I said: And this is true. Every show that traveled into the past portrayed it as close to the original as possible.
Since this a science fiction setting, there is nothing wrong with future installments looking unique and futuristic. The issue is going back to 18th century England and everyone has an Iphone because "Iphones are cool and it makes sense that if they had the technology, everyone would have an Iphone" without taking into account how that technology would drastically change the time period beyond the aesthetic of everyone being on 18th century Twitter. It would cease to be the 18th century as we know it and become something entirely different, which could very well lead to a very different future. But none of that matters because "well, the 18th century looks like garbage and is much improved with everyone having an Iphone".
Spock and the starship Enterprise were never intended to be in Star Trek: Discovery beyond a couple of mentions. Writer/Director Akiva Goldsmith (the guy who was totally gung-ho to be on the STDZ team before he left saying "never again") stated that Spock would "never" be on the show outside of being mentioned and the same went for the Enterprise.
Clearly, SOMETHING changed and it was a surprise to the creators. Alex Kurtzman said "our biggest challenge going into season 2 is trying to figure out why the Enterprise was there and what it means going forward into the second season". My personal opinion is that CBS wants "more onscreen TOS aesthetic and characters" probably for merchandising reasons or possibly "brand recognition". Lots of people know who Spock is or have a passing familiarity with the starship Enterprise.
In any case, I believe CBS wants to preserve TOS and the current curators of Star Trek: Discovery are only interested in thier creative vision.
I am certain that the people involved in TOS made the best thing possible at the time, and sometimes possibly even ground-breaking. But every show is limited to what is possible within its technical and budgetary limitations.
One important objective for them was certainly to look futuristic to the audience. It wasn't necessarily about: "This is how the Enterprise really has to look. But this is how we can make it so that it does look futuristic today, as we make it."
Should their choice in ow to accomplish a futuristic look be more important than their overriding objective of that look? Did they really care that they used trigger switches and what not, or did they do it because the ones they used looked the most futuristic among the options they could implement?
The TOS movies, the TNG movies and so on all tried to do the same -how can we create a futuristic look. There wasn't really any other need to change the look at all. If they wanted, they could have recreated the original sets, and it could reasonably be argued that since this is what the franchise looked then, it should keep looking that way. But they definitely did not, and I don't think it was ever seriously considered.
With TNG , they gave us an easy handwave to explain why things looked different: "It's a century later". But that wasn't the reason at all to change the look. THe reason was because TV, movies and the audience have moved on in the past decades and new things were possible and new things were expected.
And this is my main problem with Discovery that I have mentioned a few times already. Get rid of the name drops and rename the Klingons to some other alien race and we have a Star Trek series set in the late 24th Century or early 25th Century. It should not be that easy to turn a prequel into a sequel and that is why Discovery is a lousy prequel while Enterprise would have been a great prequel if they removed all scenes featuring the Temporal Cold War.
Star Trek occurs in a fictional universe. That fiction established it's own appearance, look and lore. Our reality does not have a "world war 3" or a "eungenics war". The entire fiction is a "what if" parallel universe with it's own history, technological advancement, and design aesthetic.
When someone becomes invested in your fiction it is because of: setting, lore and physical laws, tone, themes, characters, appearance or any combination of the above. To retroactively go back to that "historical period" within the setting and change any portion of the fiction is a clear statement: "Whatever reason got you invested in this fictional setting is invalid". It says to some portion of your fans "this is not for you, it is for someone else, who does not yet currently exist". It cheapens the entire work, as it just highlights how this is a product, and as such, is not worth becoming invested in. It will simply be replaced in the next decade by the next "new thing". It has no stability, no reliability and if you invest yourself in it, you are a fool. It says "no one should care about this work beyond a t-shirt or a box of cereal because that is all there is to it. A means to sell products, not tell stories".
The Sherlock Holmes movie with Robert Downy Junior and the Sherlock Holmes series with Benedict Cumberbatch were all made to (also) appeal to Sherlock Holmes fans and they were not made to "trash" on the Sherlock Holmes movies, plays and novels that came before where things looked different. Of course, not every fan of Sherlock Holmes likes all of the different interpretations of him, but that doesn't mean they were made to insult him or to drive him out.
The setting has it's own lore and history. It was established. retroactively changing the setting is the exact same thing. Otherwise, it is not a story, a work of art. It is a product, to be consumed and forgotten. There is no impact on the audience as telling a story is secondary to making a product.
False.
In fact, in the case of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine it was both expensive and time consuming to go back in time for our heroes to play with tribbles.
False, again. Particularly in the case of a science fiction based setting.
The show's creators could very easily tell a story during or after the movie Nemisis and impress the audience with all sorts of scientific wonders without vandalizing the earlier periods in Trek history.
If you like or dislike the look of something is a sign of personal investment. If nothing visually appeals to you over the different Star Trek shows then of course there is going to be some disconnect. Nothing wrong with it. However, there are many components to a fiction that could get someone invested and the appearance is certainly one of them.
But making Discovery look like it is post-Nemesis while setting it before TOS is vandalism.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
Its entire style. Every episode of Discovery could have easily have been set post-Nemesis by just removing the name drops and calling the Klingons as some new alien race. Enterprise felt like it was set before the Birth of the Federation in the 22nd Century. A prequel is supposed to feel like it is a prequel while there is nothing in Discovery that makes it feel like a prequel.
My character Tsin'xing