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 Guardian 2000: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: [qb]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 [i]back[/i] to physical knobs and buttons and such in TUC (but now with a more TOS-like paintjob to the exterior). [/QUOTE][/qb] 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 [b]forty percent larger[/b]. Good luck with that refit-back-and-forth argument. [QUOTE] [qb] I certainly don't find decrying it all as "bullshit"—even if it is—a constructive approach. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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] [qb] 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 [i]Kelvin[/i] Timeline (hence bridge windows). [/qb] [/QUOTE]Claiming they are tying in with another alternate universe doesn't help the case. [QUOTE] [qb] "Relics"/"Trials"/"Darkly" didn't re-create those little slices of TOS because they were somehow [i]bound[/i] 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 [i]not[/i] to do it, too. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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] [qb] Why would you expect them [i]not[/i] to look like John Eaves designs? After all, that's what they are. [/qb] [/QUOTE]Incidentally, the Shenzhou is basically an ugly Eavesian FASA design. [QUOTE] [qb] "Looking more advanced" is subjective. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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] [qb] In times like these, we would all do well to observe [b]Saloniemi's Razor[/b]: [i]"Occam has little place in fiction (in addition to bein[g] fundamentally faulty anyway). [/i] [/QUOTE][/qb] 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] [qb] 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. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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] [qb] But as for having it both ways, I see absolutely no reason why they (and we) can't. [/QUOTE][/qb] 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] [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Guardian 2000: [qb] [IMG]http://st-v-sw.net/images/Trek/Alts/Enterprise-2254-2257-2266.jpg[/IMG] [/qb][/QUOTE]...but then add in the TMP refit, and we have an alternating pattern instead of a one-off anomaly! [/qb] [/QUOTE]With 40% upscale and downscale? I think not. [QUOTE] [qb] (Again, if one insists upon taking it all literally. I note that pic uses the "remastered" versions...is [i]that[/i] "Prime canon" in your eyes, then? [/QUOTE][/qb] 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] [qb] As much fun as an analysis of how Greg Jein's re-creation of the [i]Enterprise[/i] gets certain details like the curvature of the saucer underside or the number and arrangement of windows "wrong," [/qb] [/QUOTE]Most people recognize the utility of distinguishing between a virtually unnoticable, difficult-to-replicate detail and a blindingly obvious difference. [QUOTE] [qb] or a rehash of how the TMP refit can't "realistically" be derived from the TOS version, anyway. [/qb] [/QUOTE]That's actually incorrect. [QUOTE] [qb] 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? [/qb][/QUOTE]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. [/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