posted
Unless there's some major fake-out on the way, maybe involving the wireframe NX-alike ship seen in the latest teaser, it looks like we're stuck with the delta-winged McQuariie Phase II knock-off for the show.
But if that wireframe is in fact the Shenzhou, then I'm left thinking, WTF? Is this some sort of subtle dig at ST:ENT by having the ship that isn't the show ship be so like the NX?
And there's no getting away from the fact the delta is an awful design.
The guys at Trekyards have done a piece on how it does in ftheir opinion fit into the design lienage:
In a nutshell the delta wing is depicted as a necessary logical step in the evolution/development of the secondary hull. Which is certainly a viewpoint worth considering. As for the rest... where did they get the Discovery model, that they spent so much time analysing the details of, from? I think it was a fan creation, in which case obsessing over the Bussards, the nacelles and that weird groove on the saucer is pointless. And all those phaser turrets, while thus irrelevant, are also out of keeping with what's apparently a science-y ship.
Also, they completely omit the ST '09 Kelvin from the lineage. It is NOT an Abramsverse design. That ship was part of the prime timeline until Nero's ship appeared and destroyed it, changing Kirk's history. The nacelles are a bit weird and fat like other Reboot ships but there have been many nacelle designs. And so their whole argument falls apart: put the Discovery between the Kelvin and the Constitution-class and it's a massive howler.
quote:Originally posted by Shik: Nah, Kelvin's part of a whole other parallel universe.
How do you figure? That the universe Spock-prime came from was itself a different one from "ours?" Because that doesn't make sense, why in effect would we then care about it? And nobody in a position of influence has ever suggested this might be the case.
No, the Kelvin is a prime-universe ship. If Nero hadn't appeared, the Kirks would have made it home to Earth for JTK to be born in Iowa and grow up with a living father.
posted
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, of course. But different stardate usage is hardly rock-solid evidence of Prime Spock not actually being Prime Spock.
And the Kelvin, Robau, and George Kirk didn't just magically pop into existence when Nero exited that black hole.
And...physics?
quote:Originally posted by Lee: No, the Kelvin is a prime-universe ship. If Nero hadn't appeared, the Kirks would have made it home to Earth for JTK to be born in Iowa and grow up with a living father.
Actually, there's no canon evidence that Kirk was born in Iowa. He only said he was from there to Gillian in STIV. He could have been born on the Kelvin in the Prime universe as well.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Stardates are different... from what? Was there any previous evidence of what sort of stardate system was in place 30-odd years prior to TOS? I don't even remember what stardates they mentioned in the Kelvin scenes of that movie, but it's not like we didn't already have two different systems from different time periods to start with.
Also : Good grief, that video. It's like someone took all of us from twenty years ago and turned it into a YouTube series...
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Actually, I was referring to how Jellyfish used that system. But whatever. Anyway you look at it, I firmly believe the reboots are a similar-yet-different universe entirely from the start. So no Kelvin, no dumb-as-shit magically-expanding supernova eating Romulus, no "red matter".
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Okay, well, I suppose that if I can believe that Star Trek: Discovery will be a reboot and not actually meant to take place ten years before TOS like Bryan Fuller said, then I guess you can believe whatever you want about the Abrams films
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:the Kelvin universe can evolve and change in ways that don’t necessarily have to follow the Prime Universe at any point in history, before or after the events of Star Trek ‘09
As for the original thread question; I absolutely loathe the design as shown in the teaser trailer. It just lacks the grace I would expect from the hero starship.
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
Yeah, so much for last year's video of the ship only being test footage, and that that wasn't the final design...
The sad part is, after months of reflection, I like the individual parts of the ship. I still love the saucer. I think the nacelles are fine. Heck, I've even warmed to the delta.
It's how they're assembled together that I hate. The delta is so big compared to everything else that the proportions seem weird. And I'm not usually a fan of ships where the pylons attach to the back of the nacelles rather than the front. I just find such ships... inelegant.
It wouldn't really take much in the way of changes for me to like this ship, but I sense no such changes will ever be made.
-------------------- "Kirito? I killed a thing and now it says I have XPs! Is that bad? Am I dying?"
-Asuna, Episode 2, Sword Art Online Abridged
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
They'll have a much higher-rez CGI model of the Discovery than what we saw in the teaser, but I agree that it probably won't be changed all that much from the initial design.
But I also think that the ship will look much better on screen than most people think.
-------------------- "A film made in 2008 isn't going to look like a TV series from 1966 if it wants to make any money. As long as the characters act the same way, and the spirit of the story remains the same then it's "real" Star Trek. Everything else is window dressing." -StCoop
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't hate the Discovery design at all. I find it to be quite a serviceable upgrade to McQuarrie's original design.
As for the wireframe, regardless of what it winds up being, it feels like it fits nicely into the existing pantheon of ships of NX, Miranda and Akira pedigree, and seems to derive directly from several John Eaves concepts. And John knows starship design!
Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
