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] It should hardly need to be said that [i]Star Trek[/i] 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. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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.[/QUOTE][qb] The irony here is, that's more or less [URL=https://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/lcars/fasa-fsrm.php]exactly[/URL] what many FASA designs were. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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] [qb] And also that you're apparently content to take [i]those[/i] designers at their word...but not Eaves or anyone else behind DSC. [/QUOTE][/qb] What are you even trying to talk about, here? [QUOTE] [qb] ... and the TOS Connie {…} can quite easily be seen as {an outlier}. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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] [qb] TAS threw in the [i]Bonaventure[/i] [/qb] [/QUOTE]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. [qb] [QUOTE] Thinking of the TOS [i]Enterprise[/i] 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. [/qb] [/QUOTE]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. [qb] [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"! [/QUOTE][/qb] 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. Don't argue disingenuous absurdities disingenuously. More later. [/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