Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Star Trek
»
Starships & Technology
»
Discovery Starships
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [qb]...FASA...[/qb][/QUOTE]...was chock full of batshit crazy, buttfuck ugly designs that made no consistent "sense" nor took any effort to "fit" with [i]anything[/i] beyond straight-up cutting and pasting Connie or Excelsior saucers and nacelles onto random hull shapes. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [qb]Masao's Museum backstrapolated the simple shapes of the Constitution and Daedalus into even simpler, more primitive forms...[/qb][/QUOTE]...which was always a flawed (if understandable) approach in that it was reliant upon [i]only[/i] those few such scattered examples that were thereto available to work and draw inferences from. We now have many more diverse examples in [i]all[/i] 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: [qb]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.[/qb][/QUOTE]They fit fine and make plenty of sense, considering that the [i]Bonaventure[/i], [i]Franklin[/i], [i]Sarajevo[/i], [i]Kumari[/i], and [i]Kelvin[/i] are all part of their past, and the [i]Reliant[/i], [i]Grissom[/i], [i]Excelsior[/i], and all the BOBW and FC fleet ships are part of their future, to cite just a few diverse examples apart from the various [i]Enterprise[/i]s 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 [i]not[/i] to use round nacelles on his DSC ships—that poses no big problem for me. They can [i]all[/i] 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: [qb]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).[/qb][/QUOTE]Pure hysteria, much as my (quite literal) [URL=http://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/680.html#000000]high school melodramatics[/URL] before ENT's premiere were. It has been clearly stated by Eaves that the thinking behind the redesign of the [i]Enterprise[/i] 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 [i]see[/i] 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 [i]Defiant[/i] 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 [i]Defiant[/i], similarly to Eaves' statements of the [i]Enterprise[/i], 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 [i]Cooper[/i]-Prime was "supposed to be undergoing a refit" before showing us that wireframe of the [i]Defiant[/i] was meant to prepare the ground for the new-old 1701 in the first place...silly them, thinking [i]that[/i] would be sufficient explanation without them having to lay it all out step by step for us!) Nearly all of us here [i]already[/i] accepted that the [i]Enterprise[/i] 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, [i]if[/i] 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 [i]whatever[/i] reasons we can (or can't) imagine. This whole "(visual) reboot" thing is a tempest in a teacup. -[b]MMoM[/b] :D [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3