USS Clarke USS Dana USS Earhart USS Edison USS Europa NCC-1648 USS Kerala USS Ride USS Shenzhou NCC-1227 Walker-class USS Shran USS Sioux USS T'Plana Hath USS Walker Walker-class USS Yeager Space station at Eagle 12
Shenzhou built at San Francisco Fleet yards. Motto "All existing things are really one."
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Tie-in novel #1 Desperate Hours mentions: USS Enterprise Constitution-class USS Intrepid (all-Vulcan crew) USS Persepolis (all-Vulcan crew) USS Tereshkova
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Episode 3:
USS Crossfield Crossfield USS Discovery NCC-1031 Crossfield USS Glenn NCC-1040 Crossfield
Starbase 18 is mentioned and a setting which looked like Starbase 11 is seen.
Discovery's dedication plaque is barely visible.
Capt. Lorca has a nifty war map in his ready room. Hope we get a closer look of it soon.
Two identical shuttles are seen: SPT 21 (probably Starfleet Prison Transport) DSC 01 (referred to as Disco 1)
8,186 Starfleet casualties at the Battle of the Binary Stars. This seems way too high a body count IMO.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Glenn's registry is actually NCC-1030.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
USS Clarke NCC-1661 USS Dana USS Earhart USS Edison NCC-1683 USS Europa NCC-1648 USS Kerala USS Ride USS Shenzhou NCC-1227 Walker-class USS Shran NCC-1413 USS Sioux USS T'Plana Hath NCC-1004 USS Walker Walker-class USS Yeager NCC-1437 Space station at Eagle 12
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero: USS Shran NCC-1413
Where is this registry from?
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero: USS Shran NCC-1413
Here's a pdf for you. Not formatted or edited or anything, just something I typed down to get some structure into things regarding the battle of the bynary stars. Working on... something else, but I might as well include DSC. Tell me if I missed something. Analysis of BOBS (pdf) Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
Excellent work! The final ship in the table is the USS Shran, as revealed by John Eaves on Facebook. So far, startrek.com has not released the concept drawing of said ship.
Facebook link Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
In a later post, John confirmed that the USS Clarke and USS Shran belong to two different starship classes.
Facebook post Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Those vessels don't belong in 2256, or even 2356, without abandoning the concepts of vessel styling over time that had previously served this group so well because they were maintained by the show's makers for consistency.
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by gaghyogi49: In a later post, John confirmed that the USS Clarke and USS Shran belong to two different starship classes.
Thanks for the links! Hard to keep track of the stuff going on on FB. I updated the file accordingly, will upload it later.
Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
Excellent! We should do this for the variety of Klingon ships as well! :-)
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Jeez, HD and the omnipresence of the internet ruins everything. Back in 1997 we argued for about a year over just four new designs in First Contact. Now we have names, registries, even classes at the drop of a hat.
That's, what, nine new classes now? What a time to be alive. My shiplist file has gotten longer from four episodes of DSC than it did from four seasons of ENT...
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
The T'Plana Hath is gorgeous. And I really liked the Klingon battlecruiser, just enough semblance to the D2 and Negh'Var to send out that klingon vibe, but the engineering hull is a totally new aesthetic, practical instead of tear-shaped.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Spike: Episode 3:
USS Crossfield Crossfield USS Discovery NCC-1031 Crossfield USS Glenn NCC-1040 Crossfield
Akiva Goldsmith has stated there were only two Crossfield class starships in existance. With the events of the 3rd episode, there is now only one:
"We are ten years before The Original Series…Where Constitution Class ships are in comparison to where this Discovery prototype – well one of two prototypes, well now one of one prototypes – are technologically is obviously a variant."
There probably isn't a Crossfield class USS Crossfield.
Posted by Capt. Kaiser (Member # 10511) on :
Love the new designs despite feeling like they belong to a far more advanced era.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
quote:Akiva Goldsmith has stated there were only two Crossfield class starships in existance.
Which could just mean that the USS Crossfield was destroyed or never finished.
Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nim: The T'Plana Hath is gorgeous. And I really liked the Klingon battlecruiser, just enough semblance to the D2 and Negh'Var to send out that klingon vibe, but the engineering hull is a totally new aesthetic, practical instead of tear-shaped.
I'm looking forward to getting a better look at all the new Klingon ships. I especially like the one that looks closest to previous Klingon designs. Kol uses a ship of that design in "The butcher's knife cares not for the lambs cry". I guess we're talking about the same ship? ;-)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mars Needs Women: There probably isn't a Crossfield class USS Crossfield.
(Headdesk.gif)
As for registries, if these were supposed to be testbeds . . . floating labs to test starship systems . . . that'd be cool enough. But these seem to be frontline combat ships, which nerfs that idea.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
When did Starfleet start naming ship classes after the prototype ship? The earliest definitive example was the Excelsior. The Constitution class is named Starship class on the Enterprise dedication plaque, and Enterprise (the series) didn't follow this naming convention with the NX-class. Discovery could be evidence that classes were not originally named after the first ship produced at least until the 2260s (when the name Constitution-class appears on technical displays in TOS). Then again, Spike could be right, and it could be that the first ship of a class was seen as a test-bed and never pressed into active service until the launch of the USS Excelsior under Sulu.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amasov Prime: Here's a pdf for you. Not formatted or edited or anything, just something I typed down to get some structure into things regarding the battle of the bynary stars. Working on... something else, but I might as well include DSC. Tell me if I missed something. Analysis of BOBS (pdf)
Someone, give this member a job at ex-astris.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
I guess there are all sorts of reasons why there might not be a class ship (for any given class: - Non-flight testbed - Project name only - which would certainly tie in with the number of flight pioneers we've seen having names assigned to classes (we could eentually find that all these assorted -type ships we've seen at the Binary Stars are actually Gagarin-class, etc - Leonov, Tereshkova, Aldrin (!), Shepard, Glenn (!!), Grissom (!!!)...) - Secrecy - etc.
Are there any real-life examples of having twinned prototypes? Becauase the only thing I can think of is, er, the Victory and Excalibur from B5: Crusade...
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero:
quote:Originally posted by Amasov Prime: Here's a pdf for you. Not formatted or edited or anything, just something I typed down to get some structure into things regarding the battle of the bynary stars. Working on... something else, but I might as well include DSC. Tell me if I missed something. Analysis of BOBS (pdf)
Someone, give this member a job at ex-astris.
Or at least a job at Trekyards haha. But only if he likes making hour long analysis videos on 4 seconds of footage.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Ah, Trekyards are OK. Well, sometimes. Sometimes they are spot on, and produce a really well-rounded episode; other times, it's plain the format doesn't lend itself to what they're trying to discuss and it just meanders.
TrekMovie's Shuttlepod PodCast is the worst culprit though. Christ do they have some elementary gaps in their Trek knowledge. And they come across as really up themselves sometimes. Yes, Kayla, we get it, you're a real scientist. And the guy with the nasal voice, he literally has the worst voice in Podcasting history. Nicely offset by the third guy, who apparently records his part form inside a steel drum in his bathroom.Frankly given the extended love-in they're having with DSC and the access tney're obviously getting, they're throwing any notions of impartiality out the window and signing up as a full-time adjunct of CBS' marketing division.
Basically, I hate other Trekkies. I don't know any in real life, I prefer to talk to you at a distance, it's better all round for everybody!
Gosh, I haven't ranted on here in YEARS. Have a world-famous Lee smiley: 8)
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Basically, I hate other Trekkies. I don't know any in real life, I prefer to talk to you at a distance, it's better all round for everybody!
Yeah, since the announcement of Discovery, I've come to really dislike the fanbase. Few likable characters in a sea of uptight, arrogant, entitled jerks.(Edit: I changed a-holes to jerks, I'm trying to work on my potty mouth.)
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Are there any real-life examples of having twinned prototypes? Becauase the only thing I can think of is, er, the Victory and Excalibur from B5: Crusade...
Offhand, the only ones that come immediately to mind are Novgorod & Vitse-Admiral Popov, Russian ironclad monitors of the mid-1870s which tested out the ridiculous concept of a circular hull.
Posted by Amasov Prime (Member # 742) on :
quote:Originally posted by shikaru808:
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero:
quote:Originally posted by Amasov Prime: Here's a pdf for you. Not formatted or edited or anything, just something I typed down to get some structure into things regarding the battle of the bynary stars. Working on... something else, but I might as well include DSC. Tell me if I missed something. Analysis of BOBS (pdf)
Someone, give this member a job at ex-astris.
Or at least a job at Trekyards haha. But only if he likes making hour long analysis videos on 4 seconds of footage.
As for Trekyards, no thanks. While I like the concept of what they try t achieve (and they certainly bring a lot of momentum to the whole Trek ships fan community, giving them some kind of central hub), I prefer the elitist harcore realm that is flare. I mean, how often has this message board uncovered some real stuff as opposed to, well, trekyards sharing their opinion or stating the obvious? I do like their interviews with Sternbach, Drexler et al, and I admire the effort, but they really haven't left a mark yet when it comes to content. It's like investigative journalism vs. tabolid newspapers. That being said, I was hoping for some more revelations over the last days, but it seems we have to wait for eaglemoss to drop some bombshells in January with their Discovery models and magazines.I'll upload an updated version shortly.
Posted by Mars Needs Women (Member # 1505) on :
Some ship images from Episode 5:
New Starbase Design:
Klingon D7:
Klingon Shuttle/Fighter:
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Those are amazing-looking black and mostly-black pictures. (Not your fault … just seems like the VFX team was trying to cloak them.)
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
To add to what's been said already, Trekyards is terribly annoying, not just because of baseless hypotheses, but because those who think they know everything are naturally annoying to those of us who do, which is basically the Flare userbase.
Also, the American host is utterly ridiculous, as he posted a picture of himself on Twitter in a maroon monster with the caption "have no fear, Capt. Foley is here!" and asked for retweets.
No, dude, just no. Actually, not just no, but f… oh, wait, someone said something about potty-mouth.
As for podcasts, I am tempted to start one just to add my suck factor to the chorus of suck. Even my foes complimented my speaking when I was a podcast guest a handful of years ago, so there's that…
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I can't even imagine listening to a self-serious Trek podcast. I'm just going to stick with The Greatest Generation.
Posted by shikaru808 (Member # 2080) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: To add to what's been said already, Trekyards is terribly annoying, not just because of baseless hypotheses, but because those who think they know everything are naturally annoying to those of us who do, which is basically the Flare userbase.
Also, the American host is utterly ridiculous, as he posted a picture of himself on Twitter in a maroon monster with the caption "have no fear, Capt. Foley is here!" and asked for retweets.
He's Canadian, thank the lord.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
YES! Thank you! I am so happy to hear that. We have so many weirdos now, but I am relieved to be one short.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Problem is, most Trek podcasts seem to be American. Except when they're Canadian, but that doesn't matter, because the rest of the world really can't tell the difference. Sorry, but there it is. Anyway. Yes, American. And you're all too polite and respectful and incapable of saying something nasty about anything. And when you do, it just comes across as catty. Whereas we Brits, we're irreverent. We take the piss out of everything.
Amereican podcaster: "And of course the show's creative consultant is Nicholas Meyer, a truly great director..." British podcaster: "Meyer? Not arsed mate. That Sherlock film he done? Rubbish."
On another board, I've taken to calling Voq D'Wayn D'bleh, he's the ultimate Klingon space nerd (now that T'Kuvma has carked it anyway, he was the previous holder of the crown). And L'Rell, I keep expecting her to say "This one time, in Klingon band camp..." - now all the more apt now we know she's a bit kinky, likes the odd human prisoner.
(Of course, that's all gone for a ball of chalk now Voq has been genetically transformed into the implausibly hot Lt. Ash Tyler, which is obviously what has happened, but still)
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Okay, so know we know whose ass to lick. Thanks.
Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
The USS Gagarin seen in the trailer for next week's episode ("Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum") seems to be of the same class as the USS Kerala.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Seven hours later, I realize there's a typo. That should be KICK, goddammit.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by gaghyogi49: The USS Gagarin seen in the trailer for next week's episode ("Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum") seems to be of the same class as the USS Kerala.
Finaly, we will see one of those new ship designs in a close-up!
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
Did anyone noticed that the ship at the end of 'Magic to Make the Sanest Man Go Mad' uses parts of the new Galactica (engines) and the engineering hull of an Excesior-class starship?
Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
The underslung engines kind of reminded be of the Kobayashi Maru from the reboots. I was intrigued by the "hood ornament" at the front of the ship. I wonder if this is a lion, just like the head of the cane used by Stella's father.
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
In this picuture you have a good view on the engines of the Galactica:
And from what I know a model kit of the Galactica is available, so they could have kitbashed that ship...
(Ok, some may say that that ship is CGI, but why using parts of previous ships in the first place instead of creating something completely new...)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Actually the nacelles look more like the front end of an ENT Y-class freighter.
Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
The similarity is only superficial. This is definitely a new CG model which does not re-use any actual CG elements from the Galactica.
Posted by gaghyogi49 (Member # 14666) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Actually the nacelles look more like the front end of an ENT Y-class freighter.
Indeed! I can see a clear design influence there!
Posted by o2 (Member # 907) on :
quote:Originally posted by gaghyogi49: The similarity is only superficial. This is definitely a new CG model which does not re-use any actual CG elements from the Galactica.
Well, in either way, she is not a beauty...
Moving to another topic:
Did anybody identified the ship classes that docked at that new space station at the beginning of Episode 5?
My guess is:
1 Europa-Class type 3 times the Kerala Type
One or two of the Kerala type ships could be Clarke type instead.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero: USS Clarke NCC-1661 Malachowski-class USS Dana Engle-class USS Earhart USS Edison NCC-1683 Hoover-class USS Europa NCC-1648 Nimitz-class USS Kerala NCC-1255 Shepard-class USS Ride Engle-class USS Shenzhou NCC-1227 Walker-class USS Shran NCC-1413 Magee-class USS Sioux USS T'Plana Hath NCC-1004 Engle-class USS Walker Walker-class USS Yeager NCC-1437 Cardenas-class Space station at Eagle 12
So the first AMERICAN to, not go into space, but just make a pissant suborbital flight, gets a class named after him - and then one of the ships of said class is the name of the RUSSIAN who was first actual proper man in space? Charming.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
But entirely fitting for John Eaves.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So let's see then...
Malachowski: Could be named after assorted Polish politicians or military officers, but probably more likely after Nicole M, a USAF officer.
Engle: based on the others, almost certainly Joe Engle, another X-15 pilot and Shuttle astronaut.
Hoover: J. Edgar? Herbert? Or probably Bob, noted test pilot.
Nimitz: the ship, or the admiral, I guess it's really moot at this point!
Shepard: duh.
Magee: nothing really stands out, unless you go for Christopher, yet another aviator...
Cardenas: one of the places? Or there are many, many notable people with it for a surname. Uniquely, none of them are aviators, that I can tell!
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It's always going to be related to aviation with him.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
John Eaves confirmed article three hours ago. Bonus points for whoever identifies the living persons, as of today, who’s starships class bears their name.
Eaves indicated that there are other new class ships that have not been released yet.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Are they really letting Eaves name all the shups & classes? Because this guy has the most narrow-minded outlook & naming convention I've seen outside of zhorlord fanboy types.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
So all Starfleet classes are named after mostly obscure 20th Century North Americans.So much for diversity.
The Discovery's dedication plaque motto: "All things are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them." - Galileo Galilei
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
John Eaves on Facebook has the Dana as Hoover-class and the Ride as Shepard-class.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Are they really letting Eaves name all the shups & classes? Because this guy has the most narrow-minded outlook & naming convention I've seen outside of zhorlord fanboy types.
I'm not thrilled about it either (actually, I'm not thrilled at all that Eaves is even designing the ships), but look at it this way: If Eaves wasn't the one making up the names and classes, then we probably wouldn't have any at all. This kind of stuff just doesn't seem important to most people who are producing Trek these days.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
According to Facebook, Eaves assigned a class and registry to every ship mentioned, but it seems up to startrek.com to release this information.
Registries for Discovery, Glenn and Shenzou were not chosen by him, but all other registries are supposed to be chronological.
He also said, that the class names are more diverse, it just so happens that we only got to see the ones named after pilots/astronaus so far.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat:
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Are they really letting Eaves name all the shups & classes? Because this guy has the most narrow-minded outlook & naming convention I've seen outside of zhorlord fanboy types.
I'm not thrilled about it either (actually, I'm not thrilled at all that Eaves is even designing the ships), but look at it this way: If Eaves wasn't the one making up the names and classes, then we probably wouldn't have any at all. This kind of stuff just doesn't seem important to most people who are producing Trek these days.
Yeah, I really miss Doug, Mike, & Rick.
If anyone here understands diversity of ship names & classes, it's me. But goddamn, Wikipedia alone provides better options for Earth-based naming (& yes, I WOULD like more non-human names other than the couple of token throwaways we get).
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
...How the fuck do you pronounce "Bstlh"?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Just like how it’s spelled, silly.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
Really like most of the designs, but the Magee class USS Shran just looks odd and off-balanced to me.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
The only ones I like are Shenzhou, Kerala, & Yeager. Everything else is shite.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
^ You're being too generous!
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
What about the walker-class listed as 423m and the crossfield class as 750.5m
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Geez, I think I have to reconsider getting an abo. I would really like to have the Starfleet ships (sans Discovery) but what the hell am I going to do with these "Klingon" monstrosities. I'm too lazy to put them on eBay, my storage space is limited and there's no way in hell I'm going to display them on a shelf.
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
Ever shot skeet?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So, updating my shiplist... we (or at least I) don't know:
- What class the Buran, Cooper, Earhart, Muroc or Sioux are? - The registries for Buran, Cooper, Dana, Earhart, Hoover, Muroc, Ride, or Sioux?
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
(that is, I know Buran and Cooper at least are mention-only ships, probably some of the others are, so we may never know. But sometimes (like via the ST website) you get extra info)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Kerala looks like a bad black and white photo copy of a photo from a magazine from the 1980's.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero:
So we have ships from Farscape, Stargate,Warhammer,ST:Online, Doctor Who, Flash Gordon and the Lexx. (Special shout-out to the Kerala, which looks like a decent FASA design)
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by Brown_supahero:
quote:For Google's Sake - Battle of Binary Stars May 2256: USS Clarke (NCC-1661) Malachowski-class. Destroyed 2256 USS Dana Engle-class. Destroyed 2256 USS Earhart. Destroyed 2256 USS Edison (NCC-1683) Hoover-class. Destroyed 2256 USS Europa (NCC-1648) Nimitz-class Adm Brett Anderson. Destroyed 2256 USS Kerala (NCC-1255) Shepard-class. Destroyed 2256 USS Ride Engle-class. Destroyed 2256 USS Shenzhou (NCC-1227) Walker-class Cpt.Philippa Georgiou. Abandoned 2256 USS Shran (NCC-1413) Magee-class. Destroyed 2256 USS Sioux USS T'Plana Hath (NCC-1004) Engle-class. Destroyed 2256 USS Yeager (NCC-1437) Cardenas-class Cpt. Steven Maranville. Destroyed 2256 Space station at Eagle 12
Most of these are beautiful as post-DS9 era ship designs.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
So, the Buran is a Cardenas-class, it transpires. Or the ISS version was anyway, which feels good enough to me.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
The Shenzhou is finally shipping!
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
quote:Originally posted by 137th Gebirg: The Shenzhou is finally shipping!
Jealous. I wish I had money and lived in a country that has access to these subscriptions
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
ISS Charon Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
The production design of this show makes so little sense.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well, that's John Eaves for you. He's a good enough artist, but his aesthetic really doesn't match every other series at all.
Though looking at it from this angle, I wonder if he was trying to channel the Doomsday Machine for some reason.
Posted by 137th Gebirg (Member # 2692) on :
Reminds me of a basking shark.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
The USS Edison is cute as a button.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
What about this?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'd count that as further evidence that Discovery does not take place in the same timeline as the other series...
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I think the pylon cut-out section was larger, wasn't it?
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Wow. I’ve been hearing a lot of things the past few years as to how messed up the rights to Star Trek are these days, but this? They can’t even use the franchise’s most classic ship design anymore for legal reasons?
To quote Hubert Farnsworth: I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Words fail me. Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
So, who owns the rights of the original design if not CBS?
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Something’s screwy about this. How could companies such as Eaglemoss and AMT make toys and model kits of the TOS Enterprise if CBS (who I assumed owned the design) doesn’t have the rights to it?
[ April 17, 2018, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Obviously, Viacom/Paramount has the IP rights.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Doesn't Viacom own CBS?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
quote: TV - CBS Television Distribution, CBS Paramount Network Television/CBS Television Studios, CBS Corporation (2005 – present) Viacom had purchased CBS Corporation in 2000. They split in 2005. The old Viacom then became CBS Corporation. Its holding Paramount Television became CBS Paramount Network Television. CBS Television Distribution formed soon after and took over distribution of past Star Trek shows. In 2009, CBS Paramount Network Television became CBS Television Studios. Star Trek: Discovery is produced under this ownership. Movies, DVDs - Paramount Pictures, Viacom (new) (2005 – present) In the 2005 Viacom/CBS split, the old Viacom became the CBS Corporation and a new Viacom was created. This new company owns Paramount Pictures, which in turn owns the Trek films. Paramount Pictures produced Star Trek, Star Trek Into Darkness, and Star Trek Beyond under license from CBS Television Studios. Paramount also continues to distribute DVDs of the TV series on behalf of CBS. The split marked the occasion that the former Paramount Television was formally separated from Paramount Pictures; until this point in time the television company had always been a subsidiary division of Paramount Pictures.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
DOUBLE
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
CBS have now said Eaves was wrong, and there is no legal obstacle to using the original design.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Oh, OK, so it's back to them just being donkeyfuckers, then.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Okay, given that explanation of how they shuffled all the corporate names around, I don't feel bad at all about having been confused.
Posted by Brown_supahero (Member # 83) on :
Nimitz-class Side View Nimitz-Class Dorsal View Nimitz-Class Ventral View
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
So, it's a Miranda with two extra nacelles and a bunch of sharp edges?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Christ, that things is ugly.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Yes, most of the new ships turned out to be quite ugly, even though they looked good in the three quarter sketches.
Posted by vwuser (Member # 2182) on :
You think the Nimitz-class is ugly? I have a contender for you - the Hoover class. You can see its side profile at Ex-Astris-Scientia. Man, this thing is fugly.
There are only three decent or good looking Federation ships - the Crossfield, the Walker, and the Shepherd (an inverse Walker).
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
No, only Shepard & Walker, & those belong post-Dominion War without bridge windows (& they need better names). All the rest are fucking awful & John Eaves needs his starship designibg & naming licenses revoked.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I'm still torn myself about whether those ships are completely awful, or just awful because they share so little of the classic Starfleet design aesthetic. I read that someone else demanded angular nacelles (maybe Bryan Fuller, but I'm not certain). Though Eaves has definitely had a thing for angular nacelles since the beginning (Enterprise-E, Jem'Hadar battlecruiser, Klingon Raptor and D5...).
I second the vote for Hoover being the fugliest. It's just an unbalanced, disproportioned mess. Dishonorable mention to the Magee, for having those huge-ass nacelles embedded straight into the saucer. It looks like somebody stepped on it.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
Greetings fellow curmudgeons! Hope all are well!
For my part, I don't see what's wrong with the DSC ships. As with ENT before, they may flout our preconceived expectations of what the pre-TOS era "should" look like, but we simply have to readjust our perspective as to what this so-called "classic Starfleet design aesthetic" actually is based on what it shows.
I found the KT ships much less aesthetically pleasing, personally (apart from the Kelvin herself, which is quite decent except for the "rocket nacelle" feature). And DSC's new-old 1701 in particular is infinitely more so than the one(s) from the Abrams/Lin films, to my eye.
I would not find a bunch of stuff that looked more like the Franz Joseph ships or the Loknar to be any sort of improvement. (Apologies if that's a straw man.)
The Klingon ships I'm far less enthusiastic about, but not because they break with any previous design aesthetic. That "green bird" thing got way tired; good riddance, for a while at least. There's always room for a diverse variety of aesthetics in any era, IMO.
-MMoM Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Well that's the problem. There is no common design aesthetic. They all look like they're from different aeras.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Indeed.
From FASA to Masao's Starfleet Museum and from the Constellation and Soyuz classes to the Nebula and Intrepid (old or new), there has been a consistent effort to make ship designs fit known designs of an era
Masao's Museum backstrapolated the simple shapes of the Constitution and Daedalus into even simpler, more primitive forms. Enterprise came out with the NX Class and set a new aesthetic that seemed to suggest an early high era of design, akin to the shuttle popping up amongst a bunch of space capsules. Taken in that way and thanks to the chronology of early efforts versus later mass production in wartime and early Federation expansion and cold war this all could still fit and make sense.
Discovery ships don't fit even that adjusted paradigm. None of them match even TOS design aesthetics, instead representing a complete kludge of features from all eras.
Far from inspiring (or even making possible) a reasonable explanation, the set of vessels suggest a hard break from any explanation, with the modification to the Enterprise herself as nail in the coffin demonstrating that this is a reboot (or "visual reboot", as if you can separate that in an audio-visual storytelling medium).
The Disco fleet makes no sense with the rest of Trek because it wasn't really intended to.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: ...FASA...
...was chock full of batshit crazy, buttfuck ugly designs that made no consistent "sense" nor took any effort to "fit" with anything beyond straight-up cutting and pasting Connie or Excelsior saucers and nacelles onto random hull shapes.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Masao's Museum backstrapolated the simple shapes of the Constitution and Daedalus into even simpler, more primitive forms...
...which was always a flawed (if understandable) approach in that it was reliant upon only those few such scattered examples that were thereto available to work and draw inferences from. We now have many more diverse examples in all eras to consider in our extrapolations and interpolations as to just how many design lineages there have been, how their progressions went, and to what extent they are or aren't interrelated and do or don't overlap. It is up to us to let go of our preconceptions and re-evaluate our previous assessments and interpretations with the revelation of new data. It is not to be required that the makers of the shows and films conform to them.
Things do not always have to go in a straight line (nor even follow a smooth curve) from simpler to more complex; they can also go the reverse, or back and forth, taking many left turns down blind alleyways, bouncing off the walls and looping back, etc. Thinking otherwise has always been a fallacy.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Discovery ships don't fit even that adjusted paradigm. None of them match even TOS design aesthetics, instead representing a complete kludge of features from all eras...the Disco fleet makes no sense with the rest of Trek because it wasn't really intended to.
They fit fine and make plenty of sense, considering that the Bonaventure, Franklin, Sarajevo, Kumari, and Kelvin are all part of their past, and the Reliant, Grissom, Excelsior, and all the BOBW and FC fleet ships are part of their future, to cite just a few diverse examples apart from the various Enterprises and other "hero" ships. It's a big tent, and DSC merely reinforces that it always was. TOS and TAS only showed us a tiny sampling of what was out there in the larger universe. If their aesthetics are cast as unique and unusual, or throwbacks, or otherwise "special"—which was probably Fuller's intent in specifically telling Eaves not to use round nacelles on his DSC ships—that poses no big problem for me. They can all coexist within the same continuity (as the FJ ships apparently do with the movie-era designs, for that matter).
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Far from inspiring (or even making possible) a reasonable explanation, the set of vessels suggest a hard break from any explanation, with the modification to the Enterprise herself as nail in the coffin demonstrating that this is a reboot (or "visual reboot", as if you can separate that in an audio-visual storytelling medium).
It has been clearly stated by Eaves that the thinking behind the redesign of the Enterprise is that she will be refitted, whether gradually piece by piece, or all at once as in TMP, into her TOS configuration. Of course, we probably won't actually see this transformation play out (at least not completely) onscreen...but then, who knows at this point? Who would have thought that we'd end up seeing the Defiant so faithfully recreated (yet even in this, with the liberty taken of introducing subtle updates in the details) as we did in ENT...until it happened?
And speaking of the Defiant, similarly to Eaves' statements of the Enterprise, Ted Sullivan has confirmed that the intention behind its different configuration in "Despite Yourself" (DSC) was that it had been modified by the Terrans...which comports entirely with what is outright stated in "In A Mirror, Darkly" (ENT): she was already in the process of being "stripped to the bulkheads" by the Tholians when they found her, and their prospective intent was to "tear it apart, try to learn its secrets" and then in time "figure out how to put it all back together"! (BTW, it seems clear to me that having Lorca bellow in mock confusion about how the Cooper-Prime was "supposed to be undergoing a refit" before showing us that wireframe of the Defiant was meant to prepare the ground for the new-old 1701 in the first place...silly them, thinking that would be sufficient explanation without them having to lay it all out step by step for us!)
Nearly all of us here already accepted that the Enterprise had refits between each of the two pilots and series proper, due to changes made to the filming model. Retconning these alterations as more substantial than they "actually" were is not that great of a leap, if that's in fact what they have done here...especially considering that anything and everything we see in "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" could ultimately be regarded as merely a Talosian illusion, if we really require an in-universe explanation for updating a rejected pilot (or "television document" as Roddenberry described it in his bookends that were tacked on to it when finally released many decades later) from which segments were cannibalized to save production time...but if we want to, we are also equally free to simply say the DSC configuration interposes itself in between, a wartime modification later undone, or whatever.
In any case, we're talking about a change no greater than the TMP refit was. If the TOS configuration could, in-universe, be transformed into the TMP one in a span of only eighteen months, then the first pilot configuration can just as readily have been transformed into the DSC one within the past few years, and that can in turn be transformed into what we see in TOS (allowing for variance in the finer details as required by today's production values over 1960s ones) over the next several, for whatever reasons we can (or can't) imagine. This whole "(visual) reboot" thing is a tempest in a teacup.
-MMoM
[ September 05, 2018, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
That is the biggest pile of justificationary bullshit I have ever seen. Have you found a PR job in the current White House administration? Because your reaching is as complex & constructed as their output.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: ...FASA...
...was chock full of batshit crazy, buttfuck ugly designs
True enough, but fixating there rather ignores the point that FASA, along with fans and canon designs, generally tried to stick to an overall look consistent with the times. The designers even said as much. We would not expect a curvy Intrepid Class hull beside the Excelsior in Star Trek III, for instance, any more than we would expect a TOS-styled saucer as the front end of the Galaxy.
Are there outliers? Probably, especially among the background ships that were hardly meant for close scrutiny. However, the concept of chronological design ethos is at least as sound as chronological registries, if not moreso.
quote:
It is up to us to let go of our preconceptions and re-evaluate our previous assessments and interpretations with the revelation of new data. It is not to be required that the makers of the shows and films conform to them.
I'm not suggesting they need to conform to our *speculations*. I am suggesting they should've conformed to existing *canon*.
quote: Things do not always have to go in a straight line (nor even follow a smooth curve) from simpler to more complex; they can also go the reverse, or back and forth, taking many left turns down blind alleyways, bouncing off the walls and looping back, etc. Thinking otherwise has always been a fallacy.
Did I not make the same point regarding the space shuttle?
I agree completely that there is no need to presume a purely linear progression. Our own space program basically looks like capsule-capsule-capsule-capsule-motherfrakkingspaceplaneWTF-capsule-capsule.
However, there is a logic to it just as surely as there is a logic to the outlier that is the shuttle. There is no logic, however, to the Disco fleet, or the Discoprise.
You reference the Sarajevo and Andorian Kumari as prime-canon evidence of a diverse design lineage, yet the point is about Starfleet designs. I could certainly accept more alien ships brought into Starfleet or periods of alien influence (say, a Vulcan/Andorian/Terran fusion in early Starfleet ships), but that's not what we are shown.
quote: It has been clearly stated by Eaves that the thinking behind the redesign of the Enterprise is that she will be refitted,
Rubbish. That makes as much sense as having Star Trek IV's new Enterprise be the TOS version from stem to stern, inside and out. Nobody would've taken that seriously, any more than your paragraphs of anti-"hysteria" apologetics (up to and including the absurd "Talosian illusion" bit) should be. It would've been universe-breaking, shark-jumping fanservice, and not something we should have to turn ourselves inside-out trying to justify.
quote: In any case, we're talking about a change no greater than the TMP refit was.
Debatable, but even if we stipulate to that you're asking for a refit back to TOS from TMP circa Star Trek II. It's patently absurd.
quote: This whole "(visual) reboot" thing is a tempest in a teacup.
On the contrary, it is the only way to maintain logical consistency, provided one recognizes that you cannot half-ass a reboot.
Discovery, like the JJ films, only make sense as a completely separate universe unto itself. Once you recognize that, understanding it becomes much simpler and far less convoluted. There's no need to twist yourself in knots and insult others as hysterical for recognizing that.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: No, only Shepard & Walker, & those belong post-Dominion War without bridge windows (& they need better names). All the rest are fucking awful & John Eaves needs his starship designibg & naming licenses revoked.
Eaves has a book of designs out now. I ruminated on Twitter if there'd be a discount since most of the pages will look the same.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: They fit fine and make plenty of sense...It's a big tent, and DSC merely reinforces that it always was. TOS and TAS only showed us a tiny sampling of what was out there in the larger universe. If their aesthetics are cast as unique and unusual, or throwbacks, or otherwise "special"—which was probably Fuller's intent in specifically telling Eaves not to use round nacelles on his DSC ships—that poses no big problem for me.
I've heard this before, and I think it's a load of horseshit. Why would Fuller care what shape nacelles are? How does that impact the story he was trying to tell?
Considering that most, if not all, of these ship designs look exactly like typical John Eaves, I'm guessing the Fuller thing is just some made-up bs.
quote:It has been clearly stated by Eaves that the thinking behind the redesign of the Enterprise is that she will be refitted, whether gradually piece by piece, or all at once as in TMP, into her TOS configuration. Of course, we probably won't actually see this transformation play out (at least not completely) onscreen...but then, who knows at this point?
First I've head of this, but it sounds like more after-the-fact bs to me.
quote:Nearly all of us here already accepted that the Enterprise had refits between each of the two pilots and series proper, due to changes made to the filming model. Retconning these alterations as more substantial than they "actually" were is not that great of a leap, if that's in fact what they have done here...
Putting aside the exterior of the ship for a moment, I'm pretty sure that what we will see on the inside of the Discoprise will look far more advanced than what we see in TOS. Are you suggesting that the inside of the ship will go from looking like 2019 sets to 1966 sets?
quote:...especially considering that anything and everything we see in "The Cage"/"The Menagerie" could ultimately be regarded as merely a Talosian illusion, if we really require an in-universe explanation for updating a rejected pilot...
Christ, now you're starting to sound like Timo.
quote:In any case, we're talking about a change no greater than the TMP refit was.
I've heard this before as well, and I call bs also. It's one thing to call this show a 'visual reboot." It's another thing entirely to say that what we see in this visual reboot will eventually segue into what we see in TOS. It's either a visual reboot of the TOS era, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
↑↑↑↑ If I could hit the "love" button on that post, I would.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I can't claim credit, but yes.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Also, this is more of a side note given that it was a background thing, but they also modified Spacedock. Quoting myself from elsewhere where someone was arguing it was identical:
quote: The Discovery station structure as seen does not match the 80's Spacedock model. The variations are more than, say, the Bulldog Enterprise-D versus the svelte ILM model, and moreover are sufficient in nature and extent to force one to dismiss any suggestion that it's due to construction in progress.
First, let's find a good model and compare it to the 80's Spacedock model to confirm a good fit for further checks. Why must we do this? Because the Discovery station is shown at an unusual angle, meaning we can't simply overlay existing pics and call it a day.
So, let's take a model I found and compare it to the iconic approach scene from ST3, with the model lit oppositely to show divergence better:
That's pretty dang good. The large upper mushroom structure has a few points of departure . . . the rim is too thick on the model and the flat-top a bit too narrow, but otherwise we're doing well unless you want to count off for window alignment.
Now we'll take the best version of the Discovery station image and adjust it for best visibility:
Now we can take the station model and maneuver it as necessary to match.
Note some of the areas of difference.
One thing worth noticing is that the main mushroom rim is much thicker on the Discovery station. Additionally, the second mushroom is way smaller, yet appears to be receiving hull covering (marked in purple). I dunno what the extra (blue) bit is. Also, most notably, the flat-top now extends out onto the 'hillside', curving downward on its way to the rim (marked in red). The following visual aid may help explain my meaning:
This is not evidence of incomplete construction. This is a different structure altogether . . . you cannot get from A to B without utterly altering the structure, or building atop it and thereby exacerbating the other issues. By "other issues", I refer to the fact that there's the little matter of the secondary mushroom, here receiving an outer skin despite being tiny, and other central shaft differences. If you expand the main mushroom (at the cost of hundreds of ships' worth of material, mind you), you alter the proportions of the assorted parts.
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shik: That is the biggest pile of justificationary bullshit I have ever seen. Have you found a PR job in the current White House administration? Because your reaching is as complex & constructed as their output.
That's right, Shik...I'm the one who wrote the op-ed! Don't tell anyone, though...
In all seriousness (and/or good fun), no need for such an odious and insulting comparison. We are talking about fiction here, not fact. It's all constructed bullshit. However, the claim that DSC is any more of a "reboot" (visual or otherwise) than TMP or TNG or ENT or the framing elements of ST'09 in turn were is indeed...FAKE NEWS!
It should hardly need to be said that Star Trek continuity, such as it be, is not actually a self-consistent objective reality, and never has been, however much we might all like to pretend otherwise. (Or perhaps not so much anymore, it seems? In any case, it's only ever been pretense, whether theirs or ours, that has made it all fit together.) It's always been but a coalescence of disparate (and sometimes conflicting) ideas contributed by various individuals over the years, infinitely malleable to the whims of whoever is telling the story at a given moment...and from the start they have always freely changed things as they went along, offering or forgoing in-story "justification" as they so desired. There is no "hard break" with the past (or future) here, only the addition of hereto unseen elements that re-contextualize what has been previously portrayed as part of a larger and more complex picture. To deny this is to deny the entire artistic premise of the show, and just as ridiculous as denying the validity of any that has come before.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: True enough, but fixating there rather ignores the point that FASA, along with fans and canon designs, generally tried to stick to an overall look consistent with the times. The designers even said as much. We would not expect a curvy Intrepid Class hull beside the Excelsior in Star Trek III, for instance, any more than we would expect a TOS-styled saucer as the front end of the Galaxy.
The irony here is, that's more or less exactly what many FASA designs were. And also that you're apparently content to take those designers at their word...but not Eaves or anyone else behind DSC.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Are there outliers? Probably...
...and the TOS Connie, a design that was envisioned to date back "about forty years" at the time The Making Of Star Trek was compiled—and still could for all we know, even if the Enterprise herself wasn't launched until 2245, which was never established onscreen (and would contradict Morrow's line that she was only "twenty years old" in STIII, which in turn contradicted "The Menagerie")—can quite easily be seen as one of them. It's the only Starfleet ship design we ever saw in TOS itself, after all.
TAS threw in the Bonaventure, which itself prefigures the Connie by a century (under the interpretation that she was the first Starfleet vessel to have a working warp drive installed) and the NX-01 by decades (however old we want to say SF is, since that was never established onscreen either, only that it dated back at least fifteen years in ENT), plus a couple of freighters that share nothing in common with the Connie designwise except for similar nacelles, and which might well also predate it, especially considering the re-use of one of them as the Antares and Woden—neither originally intended to be SF ships at all, BTW—in the "remastered" versions. (Oh, did we forget they already went back and retroactively replaced ship designs in TOS once before? Or, for that matter, that the Bonaventure was re-imagined as an entirely different one by Okuda when TAS wasn't considered canon, under the interpretation she was Cochrane's ship, and then after being seen onscreen a couple of times as set dressing in DS9 was re-imagined yet again as the Phoenix in FC?)
Thinking of the TOS Enterprise as the quintessential SF vessel of her day because she was the first one we became intimately acquainted with is as faulty as thinking of Spock as the quintessential Vulcan, or Worf as the quintessential Klingon, or Kirk as the quintessential starship captain. Especially considering it's stated straight up in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" (TOS) that "there are only twelve like it in the fleet" and in "Bread And Circuses" (TOS) that she is "a very special vessel"!
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: ...especially among the background ships that were hardly meant for close scrutiny.
But if we're playing that card, then we can certainly also scratch the FJ ships from blink-and-you'll-miss-them displays in the deep background of TWOK and TSFS...so much for any further onscreen evidence of there ever having been a contemporary fleet of SF designs sharing TOS Connie aesthetics in the first place!
Now, explain why a configuration from a rejected and unaired pilot, depicted in the series proper only as literally and explicitly, not speculatively, a Talosian illusion—of attested veracity, and yet with the testimony to this effect coming nested inside another Talosian illusion that calls the entire proceeding into question—and moreover through footage that was also re-used to represent the current configuration in episodes both before and after, should "count" any more than...anything else?
The objective truth of the matter is that none of TOS was ever "meant for close scrutiny" in visual terms. (Nor in terms of continuity and canon, either, although they did generally make an effort at being somewhat self-consistent, even if this wasn't always entirely successful.) Nobody was intended to see that show in HD on a huge flatscreen and be able to make out all the details...or rather, the according lack thereof. It was meant to convey the impression of a futuristic setting to the audience of the time, not to be a literal representation of one down to the precise arrangement of every last deck plate. Taking it literally is something later shows did a little of, once in a while—in spite of Roddenberry's suggestion that perhaps it should all be viewed as a dramatization of the "actual" events, and his equivocation as to whether certain segments of it should be counted as canonical at all—purely for the purposes of affectionate schlock in the name of nostalgia and fangasms and all that good stuff. (And don't get me wrong, I enjoyed that as much as the next monkey, more often than not, but it's hardly a fair expectation to hold an ongoing seres to.)
Yet the truly persnickety will note even those didn't always line up with the original document in every detail. "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9) follows along with a prior retcon in stating the command uniforms were gold, when they were actually green, and Jein's models weren't 100% accurate re-creations in every detail; "In A Mirror, Darkly" (ENT) imparted a number of slight physical refinements to the Defiant, both inside and out, and her uniforms received a different insignia instead of the delta, despite such practice having been deprecated behind the scenes of TOS as an error not to be repeated. (Not that I'm implying any of these are worthy of complaint, mind.)
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: However, the concept of chronological design ethos is at least as sound as chronological registries, if not moreso.
Perhaps not the best comparison for you to make here, considering registry anomalies have abounded in canon from the beginning as well, without this ever being remotely "universe-breaking" or whatever other hyperbole.
There are still plenty of chronological progressions to be interpreted, just like always. Round nacelles still tend to predate bladelike ones, for instance. And we can readily see a progression from Bonaventure to Connie in parallel to that of the Warp Delta to Franklin, with the NX then being a synthesis of elements from each with what was developed from its own precursor prototypes that so clearly follow on from the Phoenix, and itself an ancestor of both the Walker and the Akira, if we care to. (Also, a progression from Daedalus to Olympic, with the design of the Medusan ship in TOS-R being an outgrowth of that lineage in between, and maybe even throw the Oberth in here too?) Plus any number of others, complete with many through-lines and offshoots. I'm not seeing why the DSC ships pose a threat to any of this, honestly.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I'm not suggesting they need to conform to our *speculations*. I am suggesting they should've conformed to existing *canon*.
Practically every second word out of the mouth of the makers of this show has been about their devotion to canon; it's among their prime concerns (no pun intended), to an even greater extent than any production team before them! The first season staff were even given to "fanatically" fact-checking individual details of Memory Alpha articles (shout out to Dan and Harry!) by re-watching entire episodes, just to make sure they weren't contradicting the actual text, before they would "haggle" and "horsetrade" around the writer's table as to how much wiggle room could be negotiated to "serve both canon and the story."
It's simply that their interpretations of existing canon, and what conforming to it looks like, are not the same as yours. And the thwarting of expectations is undoubtedly quite deliberate on their part. They know full well that the more they stoke impassioned debates among us fanboys over "continuity errors" and other minutiae, the more the show stays a hot topic of conversation in fandom. Our nerdrage is a renewable fuel to them!
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: There is no logic, however, to the Disco fleet, or the Discoprise.
There is a logic, just not the logic you or I would have elected to follow, had it been up to us. For more on Eaves' ideas about it, see my reply to Dukkie below.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: You reference the Sarajevo and Andorian Kumari as prime-canon evidence of a diverse design lineage, yet the point is about Starfleet designs. I could certainly accept more alien ships brought into Starfleet or periods of alien influence (say, a Vulcan/Andorian/Terran fusion in early Starfleet ships), but that's not what we are shown.
The Sarajevo was a Starfleet ship, at least according to both the script of "Daedalus" (ENT) and Eaves' sketches of it. I threw in the Kumari because something about it always seemed generally suggestive to me of exactly such a fusion of Andorian tech into future SF vessels down the road...and in retrospect, we could well interpret the Shran from DSC and later the Defiant from DS9 as following on from this, if we like. Again, the possibilities are endless.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Rubbish. That makes as much sense as having Star Trek IV's new Enterprise be the TOS version from stem to stern, inside and out. Nobody would've taken that seriously...
Firstly, nobody (except perhaps a mere handful of us) would take a show that looks like TOS seriously today, either...
Secondly, the pilot Enterprises were never the same as the TOS version from stem to stern, inside and out. And in fact, the DSC iteration incorporates several features that correspond to ones added between "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and then removed for the series proper—including the dark strips around the saucer running lights, vents on the back of the nacelles, and even what might be retroactively interpreted as a bridge viewscreen window!
And thirdly, since you bring up the Ent-A, her interiors changed with every film she was in, even going from TNG-style touchscreens and carpeting (yet also revealing innards highly reminiscent of TOS) in TFF back to physical knobs and buttons and such in TUC (but now with a more TOS-like paintjob to the exterior).
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Debatable, but even if we stipulate to that you're asking for a refit back to TOS from TMP circa Star Trek II. It's patently absurd.
I'm not asking for anything, merely taking what's been given and making the most of it, as ever. I certainly don't find decrying it all as "bullshit"—even if it is—a constructive approach.
Heaps upon heaps of things in Trek of all eras are patently absurd. But that's not really problematic, because whatever Benny Russell thinks, it's not real.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: On the contrary, it is the only way to maintain logical consistency, provided one recognizes that you cannot half-ass a reboot.
Discovery, like the JJ films, only make sense as a completely separate universe unto itself. Once you recognize that, understanding it becomes much simpler and far less convoluted. There's no need to twist yourself in knots...
"Soft" reboots absolutely are a thing, and so are in-story retcons, and so too is the capacity for one to turn into another at the hands of the next writer to come along (hello Klingon foreheads). You are of course free to view it however you like, but the people making the show have been following at every step the premise that it's in-continuity with TOS and all the other shows and films, including the Prime elements that frame the Kelvin Timeline (hence bridge windows).
(BTW, "Prime" is a term that itself was only coined with ST'09 in the first place, so if you didn't accept that Spock Prime and the Kelvin were from the same universe as TOS/TNG/DS9/VGR/ENT and their related films to begin with, then any discussion of "Prime canon" here is moot anyway. Talk about twisting oneself into knots!)
I'm simply recognizing that the conceit behind the fiction, by and large, is that it's all one overarching universe being represented through ever-advancing artistic depiction, with which they've always considered themselves free to take liberties when comes to niggling details. "Relics"/"Trials"/"Darkly" didn't re-create those little slices of TOS because they were somehow bound to in order to remain canonically valid or whatever. They did it just for fun, because they wanted to...which is as perfectly good a reason not to do it, too.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I've heard this before, and I think it's a load of horseshit. Why would Fuller care what shape nacelles are? How does that impact the story he was trying to tell?
Considering that most, if not all, of these ship designs look exactly like typical John Eaves, I'm guessing the Fuller thing is just some made-up bs.
Beyond a longstanding desire to keep the Enterprise and her sisters "special" and instantly identifiable as distinct from other ships (which would be why Reliant was ultimately designed as she was, after having been scripted and storyboarded as identical to the Enterprise, and why DS9 was restricted from using the Sovereign for the Dominion War), I presume Fuller wanted the show to have its own distinct style rather than ape that of a 1960s television series. It was he who dictated the Klingons and their ships should look strikingly different, as well. The fallacy here is in thinking this in and of itself equates to taking the show out of continuity with TOS. By all indications, that's not been the approach taken by anyone involved, at any point.
Here is an excerpt from an article on designing the Shenzhou that comes with the Eaglemoss model:
Having cut his teeth on Deep Space Nine and various STAR TREK movies, Eaves was no stranger to tight deadlines or the usual request for every new STAR TREK ship to be completely different to anything that had been seen before. But this time co-creator and original showrunner Bryan Fuller upped the stakes by stipulating that each ship should not only look much flatter than Matt Jefferies' Enterprise in TOS, but also avoid featuring round nacelles. In essence, they needed to look as unusual as possible.
"Coming up with a shape that worked for both ships* and for Bryan was one thing," says Eaves. "But at the same time, we also had to find a way to explain why these ships in the same fleet as Enterprise would look completely different from it. It was a process that took many months and involved hundreds of sketches until we were finally got on the right track."
[...]
"I talked it over with Todd Cherniawsky, the production designer, and we eventually came up with the theory to explain why these new ships didn't have round nacelles and looked a bit out of place," recalls Eaves. "We came up with this idea that it was like the old Edwards Air Force Base in the '40s. All these companies were creating these new X-planes and, even though the purpose was the same, they all looked drastically different. So we created this whole scenario that this was like an experimental stage. Up to that point the Vulcans had been influential on matters of ship design, but now the humans had decided that they had enough of that influence and they wanted to go on their own. So this is just a 20 or 25-year detachment from that association to [where humans have] come up with their own style of ships."
In keeping with their theory, Cherniawsky and Eaves decided that all of the fleet ships would be named after test pilots, X-plane pilots, and astronauts of various eras.
[...]
Once a general shape had been chosen, Eaves concentrated on making the ship fit the series timeframe and also reference the future.
"You'll see some [elements of the] NX-01 from the past and you'll see some [elements of the] Reliant from what's to come," explains Eaves. "I felt it was important to try to tie these timeframes together in detailed form to put the ships into context..."
*refers to Discovery and Shenzhou
Now, it goes without saying that none of his interpretations, even of his own designs, is canon until/unless it makes it into the show itself, and in the absence of such we are free to interpret them differently, if we so choose. Personally, I would tend toward finding it more sensible to go the opposite way, and think of these ships as representing G2K's infusion of alien influences into SF designs, especially since round nacelles were clearly a human thing, by virtue of being already present on the Phoenix, before the Vulcans ever made contact. But that's me. (I do have to wonder why he didn't think of that, considering he designed the Phoenix, too.)
Why would you expect them not to look like John Eaves designs? After all, that's what they are. And he was presumably picked to do the job because they actually like his work.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: First I've head of this, but it sounds like more after-the-fact bs to me.
Again, more like before-the-fact BS:
"The task started with the guideline that the Enterprise for Discovery had to be 25% different...so we took Jefferies original concepts and with great care tried to be as faithful as possible. We had the advantage of a ten-year gap in Trek history to retro the ship a bit with elements that could be removed and replaced somewhere in the time frame of Discovery and the Original series...we split the [nacelle] struts so in time the cooling vent side could be removed to make it more like the Original TOS strut..."
Of course, he also mentioned that his initial version had straighter pylons to begin with, and that these were changed to swept back ones later in the process. But I don't see how his being overruled on that one detail somehow invalidates his entire overall reasoning up to that point. Besides, the NX and Intrepid from ENT had angled ones earlier, too, as did some of Jefferies' initial sketches of the TOS Enterprise that Eaves consulted. (And Jefferies envisioned such outboard components as "quick change units" all along, anyway. This also applied to the nacelles themselves, which as we know from onscreen references in "The Apple" and "The Savage Curtain" [TOS] could be jettisoned and discarded if required in an emergency situation.)
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Putting aside the exterior of the ship for a moment, I'm pretty sure that what we will see on the inside of the Discoprise will look far more advanced than what we see in TOS. Are you suggesting that the inside of the ship will go from looking like 2019 sets to 1966 sets?
The sets? Of course not. I'm suggesting that the "real" ship the DSC sets are representing through 2019 production values will be transformed into the one the TOS sets represented through 1966 ones.
Are the various locations on the Ent-D that were represented by redressed TMP sets "really" just slight modifications of corresponding ones on the movie ship? I don't think so. (And aren't you the guy who used to say that we should simply imagine all those re-uses of STII-III models in TNG, and of various alien ones throughout, "really" represented more different and diverse designs, and expressed disappointment at the remastered release not replacing all that stock footage with such? I guess I'm not the only one here who has reconsidered views of yore! Not that there's anything wrong with that. But perhaps your signature could use an update, too? )
"Looking more advanced" is subjective. And it remains to be seen just how much of the Enterprise we will actually see in DSC. Recall again how various sections of the Ent-A looked like TNG while others looked like TOS at the very same time, and others still like a fusion of both. And note that Richard Taylor incorporated art deco design cues into the TMP refit, a style that in real world terms actually predates the WWII and Jet/Space Age influences of Jefferies, and moreover one distinguished in its day as "modern" largely by its very conglomeration of clashing features from disparate styles of the past. In-universe, we could well imagine the movie-era aesthetic as much the same, an impression reinforced by elements of the NX, Kelvin, and DSC ships all prefiguring it.
At any rate, it really needn't become an issue dealt with directly by DSC at all, because unless they employ some time jumps, it's highly unlikely they'll ever reach a point where they actually overlap with TOS. ("The Cage" excepted, and once again, there are multiple ways of skirting that one.)
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: Christ, now you're starting to sound like Timo.
However it was intended, I will take that as a very great compliment! I have indeed studied well the master (and our moderator here still, I see, in name if not in act) these past years, and come to appreciate and value more than ever the utility and elegance of his approach, whereby "one can choose to argue that any bit of onscreen evidence is in fact proof of the exact opposite," even if I don't always agree with all of his interpretations (and even he may not either). I fully expect such appreciation would be echoed by the makers of DSC, too.
In times like these, we would all do well to observe Saloniemi's Razor:
"Occam has little place in fiction (in addition to bein[g] fundamentally faulty anyway). When there is nothing explicit, we cannot call the implicit 'true,' regardless of what things like common sense might suggest."
Or, to borrow yet another of his apt retorts, and in doing so put my response to G2K's "patently absurd" comment above another way...
quote:Originally posted by Timo: 1) Decide that something seen in Star Trek cannot be true. 2) Decide that this is because a known key ingredient of Star Trek is absent in this particular case. 3) Insist that it must be absent because it wasn't mentioned by the characters at least twice. Or then for no reason. 4) Get offended.
Timo Saloniemi
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: I've heard this before as well, and I call bs also. It's one thing to call this show a 'visual reboot." It's another thing entirely to say that what we see in this visual reboot will eventually segue into what we see in TOS. It's either a visual reboot of the TOS era, or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.
I've never used that term myself, and to my knowledge neither has anyone involved with DSC. As far as I can tell, it's only being used by fans—as either a defense or an indictment, depending on the fan. But as for having it both ways, I see absolutely no reason why they (and we) can't. It's an update of the elements they want it to be an update of, and also a precursor to the elements they want it to be a precursor to. They needn't be mutually exclusive, even if it's always going to be left somewhat open to interpretation as to which elements are which, by design. Just like with ENT and ST'09. (And just like the other shows selectively followed up on what they wanted to, whilst also ignoring or changing whatever they wanted, too.) That's the way the game is played...and it's still as fine a game as ever.
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
...but then add in the TMP refit, and we have an alternating pattern instead of a one-off anomaly! (Again, if one insists upon taking it all literally. I note that pic uses the "remastered" versions...is that "Prime canon" in your eyes, then? I ask because, as mentioned earlier, other remastered episodes also contradict some elements of the original by replacing them with updated versions, too! But alternatively, if redressing a set and adding a few new greebles to a miniature can elsewhere in canon represent a significantly greater in-universe difference, then why not in the case of the pilot Enterprise[s]?)
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: Also, this is more of a side note given that it was a background thing, but they also modified Spacedock...this is not evidence of incomplete construction. This is a different structure altogether . . . you cannot get from A to B without utterly altering the structure, or building atop it and thereby exacerbating the other issues. By "other issues", I refer to the fact that there's the little matter of the secondary mushroom, here receiving an outer skin despite being tiny, and other central shaft differences. If you expand the main mushroom (at the cost of hundreds of ships' worth of material, mind you), you alter the proportions of the assorted parts.
That's...fun, I guess. As much fun as an analysis of how Greg Jein's re-creation of the Enterprise gets certain details like the curvature of the saucer underside or the number and arrangement of windows "wrong," or a rehash of how the TMP refit can't "realistically" be derived from the TOS version, anyway. But while we're at it, let's hear why in a post-scarcity world (certain exotic substances excepted) where energy can be instantaneously converted into matter, and vice versa, "the cost of hundreds of ships' worth of material" would be an obstacle to...anything at all?
-MMoM
[ September 10, 2018, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: The Mighty Monkey of Mim ]
Posted by StarCruiser (Member # 979) on :
All of this may now be moot... Les Moonves is out:
No offense, MMoM, but none of your Timo-esque bullshit (or CBS's or Eaves's bullshit, for that matter) is going to sway my opinions about the show. Nice try though, and welcome back to the forum Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I honestly did not have the time to read that entire post, but this part...
"However, the claim that DSC is any more of a 'reboot' (visual or otherwise) than TMP or TNG or ENT or the framing elements of ST'09 in turn were is indeed...FAKE NEWS!"
...is clearly not true. TMP was set at least two and a half years after TOS, with a major reworking of the ship's design being an explicit part of what happened in the meantime (I'll give you a pass on the Klingons—that was a reboot, even if it was much later given an explanation). TNG was set a century after TOS, and ENT a century before. Of course they look very different. The difference is that DSC is set in a time we've already seen (or, at least, we've seen times that very closely bracket it that look the same as each other), and it just doesn't fit at all.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I can't properly reply to the whole long thing right this second, but thanks for the long Eaves EagleMoss quotes. It shows that even the production staff have to tie themselves in knots just to figure out how to get their job done with hands tied by the rules of the reboot, and it does soften my harsh appraisal of his work somewhat.
As for the rest, to summarize, your arguments are:
1. It's all fake and inconsistent anyway, though they tried to make an effort, so "canon" is meaningless. 2. TAS is canon. 3. The TOS Constitution was the weird one-off in canon. 4. Stop trying to apply logic to canon.
I am going to have a great time writing the reply.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Wow, it's just like the old days. Just shows the power of Trek to bring people together... for a punch-up. 8)
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
Apparently he feels the need to pop in once a year with some ridiculously long posts to remind us all how much of a smartass he is. Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Not to also make long smartass posts, but:
Part I
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: We are talking about fiction here, not fact. It's all constructed bullshit. However, the claim that DSC is any more of a "reboot" (visual or otherwise) than TMP or TNG or ENT or the framing elements of ST'09 in turn were is indeed...FAKE NEWS!
To echo TSN, just because one branded show has differences from another branded show doesn't make at a reboot.
Case in point, DS9 wasn't a reboot. It was a spinoff. They went to the trouble to have Picard and the Enterprise appear and be consistent with their TNG history to clearly establish that it was set in the same time period, just a different place.
Similarly, TNG was a spinoff of TOS. They went to the trouble of having Dr. McCoy appear as a very old man reminiscing about ships named Enterprise to clearly establish it was set at a later date.
Enterprise, too, was a spinoff. As a prequel their options were a bit more limited, but they brought in Cromwell to reprise his role as Zephram Cochrane in a taped message to establish the connection and date.
TMP was not a spinoff. It was a continuation. They spent hundreds of thousands on the plot device of the drydock model, and many minutes of screen time, to explain the new Enterprise as a refit of the old one, and with it the new look generally. They focused on that and let the new Klingon look slip, but even that was taken care of later.
The JJ-verse tried to pull the spinoff maneuver into a different universe for themselves to play in but failed, as they were so ignorant of Trek that even their attempt to use Nimoy as the hook was so contradictory to the original character and his setting as to make the manuver unsuccessful.
Discovery hasn't even bothered to try showing us something familiar to latch on to, and instead they go out of their way to modify and de-familiarize everything we know. Even the Enterprise herself, a fictional vessel so iconic it's in the National Air & Space Museum's Milestones of Flight Hall despite having neither flown nor orbited in real life, has been modified in design to the tune of at least 25% difference per production staff (for reasons in dispute) and reportedly upscaled some 40%.
So, let's cut the crap in which we try to pretend that Discovery does *not* reflect an unprecedented set of changes to the Star Trek universe. The attempt to market it as prime while knowingly making it as different as they do is nothing more than an effort at anal implantation of sunshine, which is why efforts to defend that claim invariably look as silly as yours.
Part II to follow another day.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Correction: Discovery does show us something familiar. In the opening credits they show a TOS phaser and TOS communicator. The former is shattered and replaced by or transformed into a Disco phaser, with the communicator being obliterated completely into particles.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: It should hardly need to be said that Star Trek continuity, such as it be, is not actually a self-consistent objective reality, and never has been, however much we might all like to pretend otherwise.
Objective? No. However, the whole point is to build a self-consistent fictional reality. Every story worth being called one does, or merely assumes ours. Even a sitcom, which plays fast and loose with continuity in pursuit of the comedy, will maintain certain details of characters and setting, along with at least a cursory relationship to objective reality. The purple-haired lady has cats at home, not lions. Ed sells shoes and hates the neighbor lady, not hunt for live dinosaurs. Norm doesn't rocket out of the bar via jetpack.
There's a term for when even sitcoms jump the shark. It's from Happy Days, in which Fonzie actually jumps a shark, which was so destructive to any concept of even the sitcom's fictional reality that it became the defining term for breaking them.
Your argument is seemingly that we shouldn't view shark-jumping as a pejorative.
Sorry, kemosabe: no-can-do. We all know Star Trek is a pot with many hands, but the beauty of it was that it held together so well, and a point of pride for many fans and even some production staffers was that it did so far better than most any other similar entertainment property. Abandonment of that distinction is the problem, not recognition of its abandonment.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: True enough, but fixating there rather ignores the point that FASA, along with fans and canon designs, generally tried to stick to an overall look consistent with the times. The designers even said as much. We would not expect a curvy Intrepid Class hull beside the Excelsior in Star Trek III, for instance, any more than we would expect a TOS-styled saucer as the front end of the Galaxy.
The irony here is, that's more or less exactly what many FASA designs were.
No, FASA designs were not intergenerational monstrosities. They were *intragenerational* monstrosities. They tried to maintain an era-appropriate look, even if that look was era-apprpriately hideous (e.g. Chandley, IIRC).
Why do you persist in trying to evade the point about era-appropriate looks in favor of bashing FASA designs, even to the point of doing so in a shark-jumpingly absurd way?
quote: And also that you're apparently content to take those designers at their word...but not Eaves or anyone else behind DSC.
What are you even trying to talk about, here?
quote: ... and the TOS Connie {…} can quite easily be seen as {an outlier}.
So STD fans are willing to write off the Jefferies Enterprise design as an anachronistic one-off outlier design so as to believe that their reboot show (with its non-TOS-looking ships) isn't one.
Stuff like that is why all the STD fans claiming folks who don't like Discovery aren't true Star Trek fans always amuses and amazes me.
But seriously, if you have to write off everything you've seen before, yours is not the argument for consistency. Hell, you spend paragraphs attacking consistency. Why even seek to explain away the Constitution Class as an outlier if there is, to you, nothing to lay out from?
quote: TAS threw in the Bonaventure
TAS isn't canon. It wasn't treated as such during the TNG-ENT production run, so it is silly to try to backport it because the guy who ran StarTrek.com wanted to pretend he was the lord of Trek after Berman left.
quote: Thinking of the TOS Enterprise as the quintessential SF vessel of her day because she was the first one we became intimately acquainted with is as faulty as thinking of Spock as the quintessential Vulcan, or Worf as the quintessential Klingon, or Kirk as the quintessential starship captain.
We are explicitly told they aren't. Spock is half-Vulcan, Worf was raised by humans, and Kirk is shot to the Admiralty.
The Enterprise design has no such uniqueness noted, and indeed the rest of Trek suggests it is a standard.
quote: Especially considering it's stated straight up in "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" (TOS) that "there are only twelve like it in the fleet" and in "Bread And Circuses" (TOS) that she is "a very special vessel"!
Twelve ships of a class doesn't mean the rest are wholly different technologically and aesthetically. That's a crazy claim.
Also, Merrick was distinguishing between spaceships and starships.
More later.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Let's step back and review for a moment, Mim.
Earlier, I said "From FASA to Masao's Starfleet Museum and from the Constellation and Soyuz classes to the Nebula and Intrepid (old or new), there has been a consistent effort to make ship designs fit known designs of an era."
You responded that FASA ships are ugly, as if that is relevant. Still trying to treat you fairly, I noted that fixating on FASA ignores the point I was making, and reasonably noted that the possible presence of outliers doesn't change the general rule.
That, I would note, is the approach that most reasonable people take, rather than trying to suggest that outliers render the whole enterprise moot. Another alternative is to do what you did and *literally declare the TOS Enterprise moot*. And when the notion of hypothetical outliers was mentioned, you took that as an opportunity to try to excitedly argue that the FJ ship designs seen on-screen should be ejected from consideration, because reasons.
This is not rational behavior.
Speaking of irrational, your absurd viewpoint even requires you to not only claim TAS is canon when it isn't (because you think Bonaventure vs. NX Class creates enough confusion for you to slip through), but also to make challenge against "The Cage" being canon when it is (because you think having the Enterprise look the same in 2254 and 2266 hurts your case, which is true).
"The Cage" is canon. I've already had a debate with an STD sufferer about it, because he wanted to pull the same malarkey.
So, as a public service, here is the perennial reminder that "non-canon" is not equal to "things you don't like."
quote: Now, explain why a configuration from a rejected and unaired pilot, depicted in the series proper only as literally and explicitly, not speculatively, a Talosian illusion—of attested veracity, and yet with the testimony to this effect coming nested inside another Talosian illusion that calls the entire proceeding into question—and moreover through footage that was also re-used to represent the current configuration in episodes both before and after, should "count" any more than...anything else?
1. "The Cage" was broadcast on television via the TNG package in 1988 to help offset the issues related to the writer's strike. Naturally, rather than show a different, two-decade-older program with color and black-&-white bits cold, they had an introduction wrapper which also featured ST5 and TNG2 previews at the end.
1A. The Cage is released with the rest of TOS on home media.
2. Your claim that Kirk would not have known that his ship had been, structurally and aesthetically, totally different around eight years before he took command is absurd.
quote: they did generally make an effort at being somewhat self-consistent, even if this wasn't always entirely successful.
I'd have thought you'd say that is irrelevant.
Oh wait, you do.
quote: Yet the truly persnickety will note even those didn't always line up with the original document in every detail. "Trials and Tribble-ations" (DS9) follows along with a prior retcon in stating the command uniforms were gold, when they were actually green, and Jein's models weren't 100% accurate re-creations in every detail; "In A Mirror, Darkly" (ENT) imparted a number of slight physical refinements to the Defiant, both inside and out, and her uniforms received a different insignia instead of the delta, despite such practice having been deprecated behind the scenes of TOS as an error not to be repeated. (Not that I'm implying any of these are worthy of complaint, mind.)
1. Yes, you are making them into a complaint, as you are trying to use them as evidence against the very concept of Trek's fictional reality.
2. Kirk's standard uniform is gold. Federation ships are gray. A whiff of other color that scarcely shows on-screen, or even not at all… be it "avocado" or "duck egg"… doesn't change that.
Or do you argue that some of the kitbashes made for UV matte filming had highlighter-color windows and other gaudy-colored features?
3. The minor differences between ships (I am surprised you didn't reference the four-footer Enterprise-D) are split hairs compared to trying to fit the Discovery fleet into the TOS Federation.
quote: Perhaps not the best comparison for you to make here, considering registry anomalies have abounded in canon from the beginning as well,
Oh, no, I am happy to make the comparison. Starship registries flow chronologically. So do ship designs.
quote: I'm not seeing why the DSC ships pose a threat to any of this, honestly.
Because you don't want to. You want to pretend the Eaves copy-paste stylings, previously mostly limited to the 2370s, can just flit back and forth with no concept of or thought to the engineering principles that might be involved. You reference the Sarajevo, for instance, not recognizing that the very reason it is so memorable is because it was contentious as a design.
Disco ships are akin to having modern plastic bumper covers and headlight assemblies atop a unibody frame show up on the 1957 Thunderbird. Not only would they not have built it that way, but they couldn't have.
Having a chronological design ethos helps imbue a sense of reality to the fiction because the audience sees it in cars, as just one example. Sure, we may not be privy to every background detail of engineering and Subspace physics that goes into Starship design, but the design ethos changing over time helps give us the idea that such things exist. On the other hand, just slapping different era details on willy-nilly breaks that realism.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: I'm not suggesting they need to conform to our *speculations*. I am suggesting they should've conformed to existing *canon*.
Practically every second word out of the mouth of the makers of this show has been about their devotion to canon; it's among their prime concerns (no pun intended), to an even greater extent than any production team before them!
I certainly agree that they have paid more lip service to the term "canon" then other production teams. However, they have also contradicted more of it, complained more about it (e.g. Enterprise), and also used the term "reboot" more.
Certainly in an age of weaponized canon policies . . . that is to say, a time when transmedia entertainment company marketing folks realize that "canon" is a concept that sells, rather than just being some esoteric nerd thing . . . it behooves us to pay a bit more attention to the *results* than to just rest upon the *claim* like we could in the old days.
quote: It's simply that their interpretations of existing canon, and what conforming to it looks like, are not the same as yours.
Nope. They totally conform to it, for certain tiny values of the word "conform".
You cannot "interpret" 1+1 to be 3.
quote: And the thwarting of expectations is undoubtedly quite deliberate on their part.
Bob Iger called. He said to cut that shit out, Kathleen.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: There is no logic, however, to the Disco fleet, or the Discoprise.
There is a logic, just not the logic you or I would have elected to follow, had it been up to us.
No, there is no logic. There *was*, briefly, a potential for some. Remember the first trailer Discovery? Ever see the early Shenzhou? They both had mostly-smooth, mostly-rounded hulls and three Bussards on rectangular nacelles. That could've totally served as a gateway between the Constitutions as seen in TOS and the TMP ships, even if the Disco fleet at large had a lot of crappy designs.
Instead, they chose to go with Eavesian-sharp designs with widely varying nacelles and whatever ugliness they could muster, except for the smooth-but-ridiculous-looking main ship.
quote: Firstly, nobody (except perhaps a mere handful of us) would take a show that looks like TOS seriously today, either...
Wrong.
quote: {"The Cage" Enterprise has} what might be retroactively interpreted as a bridge viewscreen window!
No it doesn't. Don't start that crap. I've already had that debate and the other guy lost.
More later.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Oh, and it wasn't the "Cage" Enterprise anyway, it was an early shot of the second pilot version. The series production version doesn't have that external not-a-window, and in any case the series was very clear that the viewscreen was never a window, even if the bridge module had a light on it. Remember, our first glimpse of the viewscreen on Kirk's Enterprise (by production order) shows it in screensaver mode.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I wish to take issue with a point. I like the Chandley-class, dammit!
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
I stand corrected; that's not the *really* bad one from my old Star Trek II Combat Simulator. I'll have to go look and see which is the hideously bad one.
Of course, bear in mind I like the Timeship Lynx, so it isn't like I have any taste. ;-l
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Actually, I don't like the Chandley ... it *was* the worst from that game. I don't mind the cowl-hulls, in principle, but they are disproportionately huge versus the saucer, and the nacelles are like a mile away & down for no obvious reason. Even the Larson, one of my favorite FASA TOS designs, is kinda silly for the enormity of its "you-can't-have-my-single-nacelle!" struts.
However, the Chandley wasn't the hideous monstrosity I was pondering. I was thinking of the Bader Class and especially Keith Class family of design where enormous nasty blocky things are grafted onto the bottom of graceful Probert saucers, rendering the saucer a weird and unnecessary appendage. It's like having a space shuttle cockpit assembly sticking off the front of a fully loaded container ship.
All that said, though, it's easy to see that there are generational traits in the designs as people tried to emulate, if not the grace of Jefferies or Probert, at least some of the lines and angles.
Even in the "Volume II" ships made sometime after Generations, most ships look era-appropriate, though the Finder clearly has inappropriate nacelle struts for the period. That I can even say that means there are period-specific styling cues that Eaves and the gang have ignored or never knew for Discovery.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I don't even know what to make of the name "Keith class". I just find myself imagining that it includes such grand ships as the USS Gary and USS Craig.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Actually, those are all perfectly cromulent names.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: I don't even know what to make of the name "Keith class". I just find myself imagining that it includes such grand ships as the USS Gary and USS Craig.
Those aren't as famous as the Keith Class USS Marvin, USS Herbert, and, of course, how could we forget the illustrious and storied career of the USS Bob.
That said, I want a USS Cromulent now.
Posted by Krenim (Member # 22) on :
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000: That said, I want a USS Cromulent now.
And with that, you've named my next ship in Star Trek Online.
Thank you and curse you.
P.S. Appropriately enough, my next STO ship will likely be the Malachowski-class starter ship for the Age of Discovery content coming next week.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Ew.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
It's a lot less ew if you look up the namesake of the class.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I don't give a flying fuck about her. It's a shitty name for a class like all the rest of them, & it's a boring derivative design.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
One does recall the good old days when test pilot names might've been on a shuttlepod, instead.
As for the ship, I just looked it up. It's one of the least terrible Disco ships, but that's mostly due to it being a restyled Miranda. The new pylons are hideous and blocky, the nacelles interesting but alien . . . indeed, the whole ship comes across better if it were sold as a Russian or Chinese knock-off of a Miranda, as if some Federation quasi-ally was trying to maintain the appearance of parity without the ability to actually match a Miranda.
I´d like to think it´s actually a precursor to one of my favorites, the Saber-class.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: And thirdly, since you bring up the Ent-A, her interiors changed with every film she was in, even going from TNG-style touchscreens and carpeting (yet also revealing innards highly reminiscent of TOS) in TFF back to physical knobs and buttons and such in TUC (but now with a more TOS-like paintjob to the exterior).
I really, really don't think modifications to the bridge color scheme or panels creates a worthwhile argument in your favor. For a similar example, a crewman changing the bedsheets as cause to invoke Ship of Theseus arguments is taking things a bit far.
However, according to reports, not only is the Discoprise significantly different in hull configuration from either the "Cage" or TOS Enterprise, but additionally she's some forty percent larger.
Good luck with that refit-back-and-forth argument.
quote: I certainly don't find decrying it all as "bullshit"—even if it is—a constructive approach.
Um. What? Decrying Trek continuity as "bullshit" is *exactly* what your argument is based on.
Discovery is perfectly acceptable as a continuity unto itself. It just doesn't work with Prime.
quote: the people making the show have been following at every step the premise that it's in-continuity with TOS and all the other shows and films, including the Prime elements that frame the Kelvin Timeline (hence bridge windows).
Claiming they are tying in with another alternate universe doesn't help the case.
quote: "Relics"/"Trials"/"Darkly" didn't re-create those little slices of TOS because they were somehow bound to in order to remain canonically valid or whatever. They did it just for fun, because they wanted to...which is as perfectly good a reason not to do it, too.
They did it because they wanted to have it look right. They could've visually rebooted the TOS bridge into a Star Destroyer bridge "for fun", but it, too, would've been ridiculous and wrong.
quote: Why would you expect them not to look like John Eaves designs? After all, that's what they are.
Incidentally, the Shenzhou is basically an ugly Eavesian FASA design.
quote: "Looking more advanced" is subjective.
I agree, to a point. For example, as I have said before, touchscreens are not automatically superior to buttons, and in some ways are actually less useful thanks to muscle memory and non-visual feedback. All it takes to make buttons catch up to the infinite reconfigurability of touchscreens is on-the-fly 3-D printing / morphing, which would be a sweet Hollywood effect.
However, there are some car things that simply are more advanced. They simply didn't have the tech back in the day to have windshields that fit smoothly against the metal body without some sort of outer frame, for instance, but now that's ubiquitous. Hell, we didn't have sufficient glue for decades to permanently mount them right anyway.
Translating to starships, the different design ethos over time (as was evident before the nonsensical Discovery fleet) suggested a march of technological advancement, not just stylistic decisions. The increasing warp speeds, designs meant to avoid aubspace damage as per cruising speed increases observed, and other details all point to this.
Now, however, Eavesian styling is just the equivalent of bell-bottoms.
How contrary, and how dull.
quote: In times like these, we would all do well to observe Saloniemi's Razor: "Occam has little place in fiction (in addition to bein[g] fundamentally faulty anyway).
Fiction writers need to observe Occam's Razor the most . . . and there's nothing wrong with the razor. There is, however, something wrong with your argument.
Re: "visual reboot"
quote: I've never used that term myself, and to my knowledge neither has anyone involved with DSC. As far as I can tell, it's only being used by fans—as either a defense or an indictment, depending on the fan.
Even if they had not used the phrase, they've also said everything to make the point in every other way so it hardly matters.
quote: But as for having it both ways, I see absolutely no reason why they (and we) can't.
That's just giving yourself permission to argue out of both sides of your mouth. If this is a visual reboot (or whatever) then it doesn't have to line up with anything else. If it isn't a visual reboot, then it does. You cannot have it both ways.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Guardian 2000:
...but then add in the TMP refit, and we have an alternating pattern instead of a one-off anomaly!
With 40% upscale and downscale? I think not.
quote: (Again, if one insists upon taking it all literally. I note that pic uses the "remastered" versions...is that "Prime canon" in your eyes, then?
Did you see the post where I noted I didn't make the pic? Hell, they're using a crappy version of the Cage ship. Look at the neck.
quote: As much fun as an analysis of how Greg Jein's re-creation of the Enterprise gets certain details like the curvature of the saucer underside or the number and arrangement of windows "wrong,"
Most people recognize the utility of distinguishing between a virtually unnoticable, difficult-to-replicate detail and a blindingly obvious difference.
quote: or a rehash of how the TMP refit can't "realistically" be derived from the TOS version, anyway.
That's actually incorrect.
quote: But while we're at it, let's hear why in a post-scarcity world (certain exotic substances excepted) where energy can be instantaneously converted into matter, and vice versa, "the cost of hundreds of ships' worth of material" would be an obstacle to...anything at all?
As the person who, so near as I can tell, was the first to 'discover' and apply the concept of post-scarcity economics to Star Trek, starting a thread of thought that's now resulted in articles a-plenty and even a poorly-written book, I know a thing or two about this question, and you have misunderstood the concept.
Post-scarcity doesn't mean that everyone can add on a transporter vomitorium and go full glutton any more than it means you can build a thousand ships at the push of a button. Post-scarcity does not mean post-budgets.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
So what do we know about the Hiawatha?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
It is broken. It needs things to make it go.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Going based on the crashed version, it kinda looked similar to the Engle class. But the computer display version looked pretty different to me.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
This is Flare! The mind boggles st what we can achieve for screengrabs now compared to this board founding in 1999! I am disappoint.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Yeah, well, this software isn't exactly modern, is it? Having to use a third-party host for images still? I mean, come on.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
Bells? Whistles? A Jedi needs not these things.
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
Anybody get any screengrabs or info on that funky Section 31 ship? How about Sarek's little dinghy?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I could probably do on Monday.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The S31 ship - mostly seen upside down - looked a bit reminiscent of the Sabre-class, but with folding nacelles.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Wasn't Sarek's dinghy the same ship seen last season?
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Looks like ~3.5m deck heights, confirming the ~750m length of the ship again. That requires a Discoprise upscale consistent with the 442m figure.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Reprehensible.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
Looks like the Eaves design aesthetic is even infecting the TOS-TNG interregnum now...
(from the Picard exhibit at SDCC, via TrekCore)
Posted by Capt. Kaiser (Member # 10511) on :
interesting design Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Since light-speed travel is commonplace in the Federation, and particularly for Starfleet ships, I'm just going to assume that "the speed of light club" is a euphemism for surreptitiously having sex while under warp.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
I think it's supposed to be like the Sons of Neptune or the Polar Bears.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I really like the Sovereign style nacelles. Not.
Posted by Dukhat (Member # 341) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lee: Looks like the Eaves design aesthetic is even infecting the TOS-TNG interregnum now...
(from the Picard exhibit at SDCC, via TrekCore)
Hey guys, welcome back.
So apparently that ship drawing was old John Eaves concept art from a pre-Star Trek Online game that never happened:
Someone must have just grabbed it from the internetz and used it for the certificate with complete disregard for the era it was supposed to be from. As I said it's an Eaves design, but I doubt that even he would be that dumb as to use an Enterprise-E era design for a ship from 2327 (and with that registry it's probably even a lot older than a new ship from 2327.) Or maybe he is that dumb, who knows.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
The other ship on that image gives him another excuse to use his precious bloody saucer cut-outs again, I see.
Posted by Guardian 2000 (Member # 743) on :
The ship on the plaque is an evolved version of the STO sketch, looking like other Eaves better-sketches.
I don't think it was just "someone". The very idea for the plaque could've come from Eaves, given his aviation kick.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Eaglemoss calls the 4-nacelled Section 31 ship "Nimrod class".
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
What a surprise that another ship-class is named for something related to Earth. You'd think the entire Federation knows Earth mythology, old fighter pilots and the likes.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
The Federation is no more than a 'homo sapiens' only club.
Posted by Starship Freak (Member # 293) on :
:-)
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
3 new class names from Eaglemoss:
Helios class for the tug.
Hou-Yi class for the smaller 4-nacelled Section 31 ship
Shiva class for the Miranda-esque Section 31 ship. Registry NI-0047.
The Nimrod class is labeled NI-0064.
Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
Ugh.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
And there was me with my money on the Woke-class USS Canceller.
(I jest, of course. But it does make me chuckle the unseemly rush they're in to get as far away as possible from Eaves's randomly poicking ship and class names from his Mighty Big Book Of Proper Darn US Aviators like he did when DSC started)
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
I guess he just didn't have a say in naming as he didn't design these vessels.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Tell me if I missed something. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I mean, how often has this message board uncovered some real stuff as opposed to, well, trekyards sharing their opinion or stating the obvious? I do like their interviews with Sternbach, Drexler et al, and I admire the effort, but they really haven't left a mark yet when it comes to content. It's like investigative journalism vs. tabolid newspapers. 
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)![[Cool]](cool.gif)
