Compare and Contrast: DISCO vs the Other Treks (and Non-Treks)

[Guest]

Here's where you can discuss and/or cuss all the differences.

[Adira]

What's with the Klingons?!?!  :)

[wilnil]

I think all the problems with canon/continuity basically boil down to:

Gene Roddenberry (and much of his original TOS creative team) have died or are very elderly, and even many of those who came on board for the TNG-era shows are also probably retired or thinking about it.

So the "torch-bearers" for the Trek franchise now are people hired by Paramount and CBS, probably with the specific mandate of "refreshing the brand" rather than "making the kind of show Gene would make" -- i.e. "screw canon, do something new!"

Throw in the fact that even the wardrobe, set and makeup designers will want to demonstrate some originality rather than duplicate what came before, and you end up with a whole production that's at best going to do something "inspired by" the previous series instead of truly linked to them. For the latter to happen, you'd need a real Trek devotee who could convince the money people to go along with it, and I (cynically, I guess) don't think that's possible anymore, this far into the Remake/Reboot Era.

[KnotsLanding]

I agree with most of the post above and I don't expect things to reflect the past anymore. I think the new movies did a great job of basically being a remake of the original series, but still having a similar retro look that was updated and obviously with a much larger budget. That I don't mind since it's mean to be a reboot/remake in another universe. The problem with Discovery is that they're trying to say it takes place before TOS, not ST09 which is confusing based on how it looks. I just don't get what is so special about the story that it has to be a prequel and not a series simply set after Voyager. That would've given them open reign to create new aliens, no restrictions in terms of costumes or anything. Why the extra headache is my big question? Another thing, I would simply say it's in the same universe as the movies if they are going to go with the prequel idea.

[BBHN]

Quote

So the "torch-bearers" for the Trek franchise now are people hired by Paramount and CBS, probably with the specific mandate of "refreshing the brand" rather than "making the kind of show Gene would make" -- i.e. "screw canon, do something new!"

 

Quote

The problem with Discovery is that they're trying to say it takes place before TOS, not ST09 which is confusing based on how it looks. I just don't get what is so special about the story that it has to be a prequel and not a series simply set after Voyager. That would've given them open reign to create new aliens, no restrictions in terms of costumes or anything.

They really should have done a post-Voyager series instead of a prequel set between two other shows. They wouldn't have the issue of fitting in things into the history and continuity of the TOS/TNG/DS9/Voyager universe. You'd think they would have learned from some of the problems Enterprise had.

Quote

I would simply say it's in the same universe as the movies if they are going to go with the prequel idea

They really should have done this to begin with. Just have it set in the movie u iverse.

[Adira]

I agree - they should've either made this post-Voyager or admitted it's in the movie universe (which is what it looks like anyway).

[Lugal]

I don't mind a prequel, although I think this would have been more interesting if they set it between The TOS movies and TNG.  There is a lot of stories they could tell to fill in that era.

But we have already seen a prequel with Enterprise and they didn't do a great job.  Enterprise was a prequel because Berman and Braga's excuse was the canon had become too restrictive they felt too confined to tell stories in the 24th century world, although Star Trek was hardly Pre-Crisis DC comics.  A prequel could have been fascinating (and Enterprise did have good episodes), the problem was B&B were in 'cash the check' mode and stories contradicted what we saw on earlier series.  Then the Reboot movies were helmed by JJ Abrams and his acolytes, never ones for internal consistency.  If a writer can't tell a story in the confines they (or the franchise they work in) set up, they're not that great a writer.

Personally, I think Star Trek has been "contracting" (for lack of a better word) since DS9.  DS9 expanded the Trek universe to see what was happening beyond just the starships, in other parts of the Federation.  Voyager and Enterprise were made to try and recapture the old feeling of the original series.  Then they rebooted the movies with the original TOS characters.  Now we have this show set in that same era, just before TOS, like Star Trek is trying to recapture old glory rather than try something new.

[legaleagle53]

Nope.  Definitely not going to be your father's Trek.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/23/star-trek-discovery-rules/?utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

That sound you hear is Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave.

[Bort]

15 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

That sound you hear is Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave.

Gene's been spinning ever since Enterprise. I'm sure he's very dizzy by now. 

[SVNBob]

Quote

Now suddenly IN BETWEEN ENT and TOS, they are using some sort of gold, silver, bronze coloring scheme??

This actually kind of makes sense in a way.  Look back at The Cage/The Menagerie and Where No Man Has Gone Before.  The Cage was Pike's Enterprise, which was before Kirk, and Where No Man... was the second pilot, but the first with Shatner.  The uniforms in those episodes were either gold-ish or blue-ish, and not the familiar three colors from the remainder of TOS and the rest of the franchise.

So the new Discovery uniforms as seen could be a bridge between the ENT uniforms and those original uniforms.  Which would fit the timeline.

[starri]

It's almost like conflict between characters is a part of dramatic storytelling.

[legaleagle53]

7 hours ago, SVNBob said:

This actually kind of makes sense in a way.  Look back at The Cage/The Menagerie and Where No Man Has Gone Before.  The Cage was Pike's Enterprise, which was before Kirk, and Where No Man... was the second pilot, but the first with Shatner.  The uniforms in those episodes were either gold-ish or blue-ish, and not the familiar three colors from the remainder of TOS and the rest of the franchise.

Which brings up an interesting point, one that I thought of just yesterday.  Pike should be in his prime and only a few years away from commanding the Enterprise, meaning that we may well see him at some point in this show. So shouldn't the Starfleet uniform of the mid-2250s be closer to the uniform that Pike would have worn than it is to the ones that the crew of the mid-2150s Enterprise wore?

[SVNBob]

1 hour ago, legaleagle53 said:

Pike should be in his prime and only a few years away from commanding the Enterprise, meaning that we may well see him at some point in this show. So shouldn't the Starfleet uniform of the mid-2250s be closer to the uniform that Pike would have worn than it is to the ones that the crew of the mid-2150s Enterprise wore?

Based on what we've seen before, the uniforms seem to have about a 10-year general lifespan before getting redesigned.  See the changeover from TNG's uniforms to mid-DS9 .  Or the change from Pike to Kirk in TOS.  Each of those changes was around 10 years apart.  And there was also a radical change in the uniforms between TOS and TNG.  Even the color tracks got shifted.

With Discovery set around the same 10 year span prior to any existing property other than ENT, it could fit that these new uniforms will be on the way out by the time Pike takes command of the Enterprise, and that the redesign is another (technically the first) radical one; going from the utilitarian jumpsuit look in ENT/DSC to the more comfortable pullover style from early TOS.

 

Edit: Do I expect that this will be the "correct" canon answer?  Or that it will be addressed at any point in Discovery?  No on both counts.  But given that everything in Discovery is trying to be squeezed in between two established endpoints, what's been shown for the uniforms thus far does seem to fit in, or can be reasonably head-canoned in, to established canon.

Edited June 24, 2017 by SVNBob

[legaleagle53]

3 hours ago, SVNBob said:

Based on what we've seen before, the uniforms seem to have about a 10-year general lifespan before getting redesigned.  See the changeover from TNG's uniforms to mid-DS9 .  Or the change from Pike to Kirk in TOS.  Each of those changes was around 10 years apart.  And there was also a radical change in the uniforms between TOS and TNG.  Even the color tracks got shifted.

With Discovery set around the same 10 year span prior to any existing property other than ENT, it could fit that these new uniforms will be on the way out by the time Pike takes command of the Enterprise, and that the redesign is another (technically the first) radical one; going from the utilitarian jumpsuit look in ENT/DSC to the more comfortable pullover style from early TOS.

 

Edit: Do I expect that this will be the "correct" canon answer?  Or that it will be addressed at any point in Discovery?  No on both counts.  But given that everything in Discovery is trying to be squeezed in between two established endpoints, what's been shown for the uniforms thus far does seem to fit in, or can be reasonably head-canoned in, to established canon.

I would agree completely that it's a possibility, but your mention of the change between TOS and TNG undercuts that argument somewhat, because TNG is set almost 100 years after TOS's original "five-year-mission" would have ended.  And Discovery is set a full 100 years after ENT.  Based upon the radical departure between TOS and TNG (as opposed to the more subtle changes on TNG itself, DS9, and VOY (all set in the same 14-year time period of 2364-2378), I would expect the Discovery uniforms to have changed as radically after ENT as the uniforms between TOS and TNG did, so the Discovery uniforms should be a lot closer to Pike's uniform than they are to Archer's.  I mean, think about it.  Our military obviously doesn't "uniform up" the same way it did in 1817 or 1917, but a soldier or officer in 2017 wouldn't look as out of place in 2007 as a Starfleet officer in 2266 would look in 2256.

I just wonder what kind of technology is going to exist aboard Discovery that shouldn't exist in that time period, either.

Edited June 24, 2017 by legaleagle53

[starri]

54 minutes ago, legaleagle53 said:

I just wonder what kind of technology is going to exist aboard Discovery that shouldn't exist in that time period, either.

Once you subtract out the stuff that defies the laws of physics, like warp drive and the transporter, almost all of the technology that's depicted on TOS is less advanced than what we have today.  About the only thing I can think of that isn't is the tricorder, and even that's not too far off. 

[legaleagle53]

Just now, starri said:

Once you subtract out the stuff that defies the laws of physics, like warp drive and the transporter, almost all of the technology that's depicted on TOS is less advanced than what we have today.  About the only thing I can think of that isn't is the tricorder, and even that's not too far off. 

I'm not talking about technology that mirrors what exists in our own time (and which TOS accurately predicted would exist).  I'm referring to things like the holodeck and the holosuites.  Those really shouldn't become a thing until sometime in the 24th Century  -- or at least the late 23rd Century, not  the mid-23rd Century.

[starri]

Is there any indication that those kinds of things are going to exist?

[Bort]

22 minutes ago, starri said:

Is there any indication that those kinds of things are going to exist?

I'm sure that's what they said in the '60s when TOS first came out. And a lot of that stuff exists now.

[legaleagle53]

26 minutes ago, starri said:

Is there any indication that those kinds of things are going to exist?

Not yet, but I wouldn't put it past the show's writers to claim that it does -- and at the same level of sophistication that it does in the mid-late 24th Century. Ditto with the transporter (which, by the way, is also under development in 2017, as are working tricorders), the replicators, the shield generators, the tractor beam, the com-badges, and even the warp core design.  That was the point of my original statement -- I must have forgotten to engage the sarcasm font.  Sorry about that!

[Adira]

On 6/24/2017 at 0:56 AM, legaleagle53 said:

Nope.  Definitely not going to be your father's Trek.

http://ew.com/tv/2017/06/23/star-trek-discovery-rules/?utm_campaign=entertainmentweekly&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&xid=entertainment-weekly_socialflow_twitter

That sound you hear is Gene Roddenberry spinning in his grave.

This is devastating to me.  Once of the things that made Star Trek so special was the fact that the crew actually works TOGETHER and seem to respect one another.  This sounds like a similar change to what the Stargate series did.  Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis had strong teams that worked together with minimal conflict among each other.  Then comes Stargate Universe and all it was was everyone fighting.  It was HORRIBLE.  There's a reason that show only got two seasons, compared to the 10 and 5 seasons the other two series got!  Changing a core aspect of a series (or universe?) that is beloved is not the thing to do.

Just don't call it Star Trek and continue what you're doing.  These people obviously hate Star Trek and don't care about it at all.  Using the Star Trek name because they think they can just get Star Trek fans for free is insulting.

[Unusual Suspect]

As much as I admire Roddenberry, this was were he was just wrong. Characters need to conflict. Even TNG needed someone like Ro Laren or Shelby to shake up their ensemble and produce conflict.

Wearing away character conflict was a problem for Trek. It made Voyager milquetoast to have the Maquis assimilated so quickly.

I guess I don't see the point in remaking Trek if it's just the old Trek. Did 2005 Doctor Who need to adhere to the old episode format? Did the new Battlestar Galactica need to be just a remake of the original? One of my biggest issues with Enterprise was that it had hit the limit of the xerox effect, when there are episodes that are just rehashed Voyager scripts that were rehashed TNG scripts, what is even the point?

[Lugal]

I think there's a difference between conflict and drama.  I don't mind conflict between characters so long as they deal with it like adults.  Riker and Shelby did not get along, but when the time came, they put it aside and Riker made her the first officer.  Drama like the Riker-Troi-Worf triangle later in the show just got old really quick.

[starri]

12 hours ago, Adira said:

These people obviously hate Star Trek and don't care about it at all.

"These people" include Gene Roddenberry's son, Rod, Nicholas Meyer, maker of the best Trek movies, and Kristen Beyer, one of the best authors of the Star Trek Expanded Universe novels.

[paigow]

On 6/26/2017 at 4:20 PM, Unusual Suspect said:

As much as I admire Roddenberry, this was were he was just wrong. Characters need to conflict. Even TNG needed someone like Ro Laren or Shelby to shake up their ensemble and produce conflict.

 

Watch the documentary "Chaos On The Bridge" by William Shatner about the early days of TNG.  Showrunners and writers struggled constantly with the "no conflict" constraints.

[starri]

And it's also why DS9, VOY, and ENT all had characters that weren't in Starfleet. 

[wknt3]

Personally I am afraid that we will end up with the same issues re: canon and continuity that we had with Enterprise where there was an obsession with cameos and explaining relatively minor and unimportant things that can easily be ignored or fanwanked away like the Klingon makeup while screwing up big important things like the distance between Earth and Klingon space or Vulcan culture. I don't want to see Jolene Blalock or Robert Picardo as Dr. Zimmerman's grandfather. I don't want Pon Farr treated as common knowledge or them dealing with Roumulans and not realizing it. I don't want to see a completely new version of Klingon society. But I won't mind if they tell an entertaining story that seems to conflict with some line of dialogue in one episode of TOS or TNG.

[starri]

I really don't think Enterprise callbacks are the way they're going to go here.

[KnotsLanding]

I didn't really care for Enterprise, but I wouldn't mind seeing some of the cast pop up, particularly Jolene Blalock who I felt had an interesting character but was stuck in the wrong show. With that said, I definitely don't expect any Enterprise call backs since this show seems to be a total reboot in every sense of the word. I'm trying to maintain excitement, but so many things bother me. The Klingon's are so popular and central to this plot yet they look nothing like they did on the previous shows. It's just strange and it's not just that but so many things and I'm sure when the show premieres it'll be worse. I think the show will be entertaining but it's going to take a complete suspension of belief when it comes to canon aspects.

[readster]

Yes, I just can't get over the new look for the Klingons. I know they introduced it in ST: Into the Darkness, but it feels too much. I mean their ideas to give the Romulans a new look was to shave their heads and give them face tattoos, but that was even said by Nero they weren't part of the Empire. The look just seems like they mixed Cardaassians with their Proform from ST: TNG Genesis episode. I don't really like it, even with the original series to Star Trek the Motion Picture they tried to keep the looks similar, but updated. I feel this is just too much removed.

[Adira]

2 hours ago, readster said:

Yes, I just can't get over the new look for the Klingons. I know they introduced it in ST: Into the Darkness, but it feels too much. I mean their ideas to give the Romulans a new look was to shave their heads and give them face tattoos, but that was even said by Nero they weren't part of the Empire. The look just seems like they mixed Cardaassians with their Proform from ST: TNG Genesis episode. I don't really like it, even with the original series to Star Trek the Motion Picture they tried to keep the looks similar, but updated. I feel this is just too much removed.

Especially when the creators have said that Discovery is supposed to take place in Prime universe (TOS, TNG, etc) and NOT in Abrams universe (new movies), it doesn't make sense for the Klingons to look like they are from Abrams Star Trek and nothing like normal Klingons.  If they wanted to just use stuff from the movies, then just say that this takes place in the Abrams universe, that this series is part of the rebooted series, and has nothing to do with original Star Trek!  Then we wouldn't complain about the differences because we'd know it's a complete reboot and not trying to stick to canon at all.

[starri]

Why did the Klingons change between TOS and TMP?  Why again (subtly, but they are different) between TMP and TSFS?

Why did the Trill have bumpy foreheads on TNG but spots on DS9?

[KnotsLanding]

The Klingon change between TOS and TMP was due to technological advances in what they could do with makeup. From there they did keep tinkering with it, but only to perfect the look. I didn't mind that, but this doesn't fit anywhere in the prime universe, hence why if this was set in the movie universe it would be fine. All of this would be. We'd have nothing to complain about plus they'd be able to do crossovers with the movies which is why I'm surprised they went this route.

[BBHN]

Quote

Why did the Trill have bumpy foreheads on TNG but spots on DS9?

Well, once they decided the Trills would be a regular feature on DS9 (as opposed to the one-off guest stars on TNG), they decided the make-up for the TNG Trills didn't work on Terry Farrell, so the went with the spots instead. Not that they didn't try to make it work, it just wasn't successful. Plus, some executives at Paramount weren't a fan of that look either.

Here is a test pic of Terry in the TNG style make-up. Note the forehead ridges are much smaller...

[SVNBob]

51 minutes ago, BBHN said:

once they decided the Trills would be a regular feature on DS9 (as opposed to the one-off guest stars on TNG), they decided the make-up for the TNG Trills didn't work on Terry Farrell, so the went with the spots instead.

Additionally, she has sensitive skin (as in, can't be in direct sunlight sensitive) and had a bad reaction to the pictured makeup, whether because of the latex or the adhesive or something.  Same with the usual alternatives. So the re-design of the makeup was also a necessary move for her health.

It's because of this that Jadzia wasn't tapped for the mission on the Klingon homeworld at the start of season 5 of DS9, despite being the Klingon cultural expert.  Terry couldn't handle the Klingon makeup.

Because of the difference between TNG and DS9, some fans (myself included) think of them as two separate species.  DS9 featured the Trill, but the ones we saw on TNG were the Tryll.  Pronounced the same, just spelled different.

Edited July 1, 2017 by SVNBob

[starri]

So, if those changes are acceptable, why are changes which are presumably also driven at least in part by more advanced technology and the show being filmed in HD if not 4K a bridge too far?

[BBHN]

For one thing, it muddies up the history and continuity of the Klingon's look even more that it already is. First they looked like they did in Enterprise, then they looked like they did in TOS, then they went back to their first look...it's unnecessary more that anything, especially when it's introducing a third look.

I don't think the Trills are the best species to make a comparison to anyway. Unlike the Klingons, the Trills were never a big part of the Star Trek universe prior to DS9. They had just appeared for that one episode in TNG, and they weren't very established in that one episode. It isn't like we had spent years seeing them, then all of a sudden we got NuTrill make-up.

The new look seems to a way to try and get some people who might have enjoyed the new movies ("Look, we have the same Klingons! Well, close enough!"), which is another reason to me that they should have just made the series a part of the Abrams universe.

Edited July 1, 2017 by BBHN

[starri]

26 minutes ago, BBHN said:

For one thing, it muddies up the history and continuity of the Klingon's look even more that it already is. First they looked like they did in Enterprise, then they looked like they did in TOS, then they went back to their first look...it's unnecessary more that anything, especially when it's introducing a third look.

I would argue the mistake here, if indeed we can call it that, was Enterprise choosing to explain it, rather than just leave it as the in-universe joke from DS9.  Plus, even after they changed the appearance, they still didn't look all that much like the TOS Klingons.

And IMO, the TOS version borders on blackface, and that could be a little problematic.

And I know that I'm being confrontational here, but whether or not the Trill were a big part of the universe pre-DS9, they're still breaking the same rule everyone is bringing up and no matter the fanwank, there's no canon explanation for it either.  Not to mention they were quite different even beyond the makeup; the TNG-version symbionts seemed to completely displace the personality of the host, whereas DS9 showed it as more of a gestalt, plus, IIRC, Odan had to wave some kind of thingie to Whatever the symbiont, and Jadzia and Ezri never did.

Edited July 1, 2017 by starri

[BBHN]

So why draw further attention to the look of the Klingons? Another look for the Klingons just isn't helping.

They really need to stay away from prequels in the main universe.

[starri]

4 minutes ago, BBHN said:

So why draw further attention to the look of the Klingons? Another look for the Klingons just isn't helping.

Honestly?  Because if they only go after the same audience that cares about that sort of thing, it's going to completely wither on the vine.

The way TV looks is different now.  The way stories are told on TV is different now.  Even Braga admits now that among the many mistakes they made on Enterprise, not telling the story as serialized--which almost every other genre show was doing even back then--was one of the biggest.  And it's a big reason why TNG, as phenomenal as a lot of the individual episodes are, seems so dated now, at least to me.

[BBHN]

What does the look of the Klingons have to with the way TV is now?

Enterprise's problems had nothing to do with it being serialized or not, it was just a badly written, and somewhat badly conceived, show to begin with.

If they didn't want to go after the same audience that cares about that sort of thing, then they should have just set the show in the Abrams universe.

Personally, I think TNG holds up rather well, even after all this time.

Edited July 1, 2017 by BBHN

[starri]

2 minutes ago, BBHN said:

What does the look of the Klingons have to with the way TV is now?

Because TOS-style makeup, just like TOS-style sets, would look really bad in HD/4K.  The TOS HD conversion is gorgeous, but that's tweaking something that was already there to make the colors brighter and the picture sharper, not making it as detailed as is possible with modern cameras, because that level of detail doesn't exist on the negatives.

[BBHN]

Have they tried it to see if it works?

All this is is just another point that show should have either been set in the Abrams universe or have the show set in the post Voyager era.

You're the one who asked why some of us were ok with the changes to the look of the Klingons between TOS and TMP and the Trills between TNG and DS9, but not the changes to the look of the Klingons on Discovery. I'm sorry if my answers don't met your criteria or approval, but those are my opinions, and I am entitled to them. You're not going to change my mind, so lets just agree to disagree.

Edited July 1, 2017 by BBHN

[Unusual Suspect]

4 hours ago, BBHN said:

Have they tried it to see if it works?

All this is is just another point that show should have either been set in the Abrams universe or have the show set in the post Voyager era.

You're the one who asked why some of us were ok with the changes to the look of the Klingons between TOS and TMP and the Trills between TNG and DS9, but not the changes to the look of the Klingons on Discovery. I'm sorry if my answers don't met your criteria or approval, but those are my opinions, and I am entitled to them. You're not going to change my mind, so lets just agree to disagree.

I'll admit I'd have preferred a post-Voyager series, but I'm assuming that it is considered unfeasible by the executives. Star Trek, for lack of a better imagination, is still Kirk and Co. So, going too far from TOS is not an option. Which is a pity, but I'd sooner have Discovery than not. And a post Voyager series would have to have done what Star Wars Episode 7 did, which was wipe out the EU novels.

... But, I have to ask ... assume the new Klingon design is kept, wouldn't we be having the exact same fight with a post-Voyager Star Trek Discovery? I grew up with TNG, but IIRC, virtually all the same arguments and dismissals were levied at Star Trek The Next Generation, and the new Klingons when they debuted in TMP. Heck, those same arguments surfaced with the new JJ-verse Klingons. And, to me, they're all still Klingons.

[Maverick]

Some other thread mentioned these are different ethnicity of Klingons that are dying off.  I could get behind that.  While they have shown the occasional dark-skinned Vulcans, Romulans and Bajorans, none of the other major species have any ethnic diversity (I think there were white Andorians, maybe).  When you're talking about theoretical aliens species, there's nothing to say ethnic differences have to be skin color.  It can be different ridges, spots, hair, etc.   It's only slightly less frustrating that all the Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians are....Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians.  All 3 are empires, which means they have conquered or otherwise brought other worlds under their rule.  The Federation is made up of over 100 worlds and at least several dozen species based on what we've seen of speaking and background roles.  But a Cardassian is a Cardassian is a Cardassian.  Surely Bajor isn't the only world they occupied.

 As for a post-Voyager series, they wouldn't necessarily have to throw out the relaunch novels (although they probably would because they don't care).  The series, like TNG, could be set several decades after the last show or they could set it in another corner of the Trek universe.  Either way, the events of the books wouldn't have to have a direct effect on the show.  I remember there was an idea floated at one point about a post-Voyager show set some time later.   The Federation had been fragmented by a terrorist attack using Omega particles and the show would focus on the crew going out trying to rebuild the Federation.  I would rather see that than another prequel. 

[wknt3]

19 hours ago, Unusual Suspect said:

I'll admit I'd have preferred a post-Voyager series, but I'm assuming that it is considered unfeasible by the executives. Star Trek, for lack of a better imagination, is still Kirk and Co. So, going too far from TOS is not an option. Which is a pity, but I'd sooner have Discovery than not. And a post Voyager series would have to have done what Star Wars Episode 7 did, which was wipe out the EU novels.

Sounds like a win win to me. We avoid all the issues of prequels, move forward, and get to reboot the novels, comics, and other tie-ins too. Just like Star Wars the good stuff will stay in print, the great stuff can move to the screen, and we can get new stories that are no longer limited by previous bad decisions.

 

Quote

... But, I have to ask ... assume the new Klingon design is kept, wouldn't we be having the exact same fight with a post-Voyager Star Trek Discovery? I grew up with TNG, but IIRC, virtually all the same arguments and dismissals were levied at Star Trek The Next Generation, and the new Klingons when they debuted in TMP. Heck, those same arguments surfaced with the new JJ-verse Klingons. And, to me, they're all still Klingons.

Of course we would. This is Star Trek. The fans will fight about everything as you've pointed out. Personally I'm willing to cut them a lot of slack on uniforms, the look of the ship and the tech, etc. and wouldn't really care about the makeup changes except that they've already made a big deal of it in previous series so they probably should have stuck with something closer to TOS, but updated for modern budgets and screens.
 

10 hours ago, Maverick said:

Some other thread mentioned these are different ethnicity of Klingons that are dying off.  I could get behind that.  While they have shown the occasional dark-skinned Vulcans, Romulans and Bajorans, none of the other major species have any ethnic diversity (I think there were white Andorians, maybe).  When you're talking about theoretical aliens species, there's nothing to say ethnic differences have to be skin color.  It can be different ridges, spots, hair, etc.   It's only slightly less frustrating that all the Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians are....Klingons, Romulans and Cardassians.  All 3 are empires, which means they have conquered or otherwise brought other worlds under their rule.  The Federation is made up of over 100 worlds and at least several dozen species based on what we've seen of speaking and background roles.  But a Cardassian is a Cardassian is a Cardassian.  Surely Bajor isn't the only world they occupied.

Yeah. I can see the Klingons going all lebensraum and mostly wiping out the populations of the worlds they conquer before moving in and keeping any subjugated peoples far away from ships and outsiders, but the Cardassians and Romulans seem far more pragmatic and it seems like a waste of a great potential story that we never got to meet someone like an alien scientist from an occupied world collaborating with the Cardassians. Although it would be quite amusing to find out that the Klingons' doctors, exobiologists, kitchen staff, are almost all from different species that live on other worlds within the Klingon Empire and that was how they get away with being 90% warriors, but still being a functional interstellar society.

[dwmarch]

On 6/24/2017 at 7:43 AM, SVNBob said:

Based on what we've seen before, the uniforms seem to have about a 10-year general lifespan before getting redesigned.  See the changeover from TNG's uniforms to mid-DS9 .  Or the change from Pike to Kirk in TOS.  Each of those changes was around 10 years apart.  And there was also a radical change in the uniforms between TOS and TNG.  Even the color tracks got shifted.

My personal in-universe fanwank for the uniform changes is that there is a department within Starfleet of officers who have absolutely no desire to seek out new life and new civilizations and they are happy to work in Sector 001 designing uniforms all day. But Starfleet's Department of Uniform Design and Adjustment is always on the chopping block when Starfleet is doing the budget and that's when we see a new uniform appear. They change up at different intervals because that is the length of the service contracts the department was able to negotiate. The group that designed the movie-era uniform got the best deal, a 75 year contract. But Starfleet said we're never letting them get away with that again and so now we have new uniforms every decade. But there is still some Admiral out there who wants them gone so he can sing "Guess who got cut from the budget today? DUDA, DUDA!"

[paigow]

http://www.zedge.net/d2w/4/1890437/337123455/view/?mp3

Music played at Starfleet Budget meeting....

[SVNBob]

Seems like Kurtzman et al were concerned about the topic of this thread, and took steps to ensure canon wasn't violated (or if it was, it was done so "acceptably").  They did this by hiring superfans to sit in on the writer's room to be fact-checkers.

http://nerdist.com/star-trek-discovery-fact-checkers-experts-fan-writers/

[Adira]

That's encouraging.  Curious how they'll explain all these differences if they really are trying to stay true to canon.

[legaleagle53]

9 hours ago, Adira said:

That's encouraging.  Curious how they'll explain all these differences if they really are trying to stay true to canon.

Especially in light of something like this.

Honestly, showrunners, "a wizard did it" wouldn't be half as insulting to the fans as this "explanation" is.