quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: The ships I personally would want to replace are the four FC vessels designed by Alex Jaeger: the Akira, Steamrunner, Saber and Norway. {...} I never cared that they were given such low registry numbers for ships that were clearly contemporaries of the Enterprise-E.
The Norway kinda works as a funky 2340s or 2350s design, to me. The Saber's not quite awful . . . it was vastly improved by this guy:
I kinda hate his saucer-rounding up top, and he just totally missed de-weirdifying the nacelles themselves, even if we decided to leave them connected to the saucer for whatever odd reason.
Now, the Steamrunner can go right to hell. It is an abomination and makes children, puppies, TV commercial natives, and your god cry.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
And the FC ships are awesome. If they didn't exist then a) neither would Flare, and b) all we’d have would be ships that were either Constitution- or Galaxy-class kitbashes and variants.
Oh god no. I mean, I get the idea, but besides the universe-mixing, that even seems to ignore the Potemkin being visible as a Constitution and instead make it a non-Connie Discofleet class. Yikes.
Not to mention, it's all based on the Jein Starbase 11 type stuff in the first place. If you're gonna ditch visible ships, why not ditch sketchy name-registry pairings?
quote:And the FC ships are awesome. If they didn't exist then a) neither would Flare, and b) all we’d have would be ships that were either Constitution- or Galaxy-class kitbashes and variants.
. . . and the vomitous Greg Jein AmbassaGalaxies. Love that guy's model work elsewhere, but the Niagara and Freedom are just . . . (shudders)
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
What universe mixing? They’re the same. Accept it. Or just accept that most of us don’t but it and stop bringing it up all the time because it’s irrelevant.
The Potemkin is a funny one. Okuda admits he pulled the number out of nowhere (i.e. not from anything like Jein’s old articles) so the canonicity of the registry is open to question if you ignore the blurry Op Retrieve chart. Or ignore the vague sightings of it in “The Ultimate Computer”. But just one ship out of that list being open to challenge doesn’t invalidate the others or the methodology. Nor can you accept visual retconning in the case of the TOS remasters but then use potential visual retconning in DSC to justify it being in a different universe.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: And the FC ships are awesome. If they didn't exist then a) neither would Flare, and b) all we’d have would be ships that were either Constitution- or Galaxy-class kitbashes and variants.
My bias against the FC ships (and I freely admit that it's my bias alone) is that if you're going to make four new starship designs, and then give them registries of 5XXXX and 6XXXX, then make them look like ships that were meant to be constructed in that era. Either that, or give them all 7XXXX or 8XXXX registries. All four of those ships had attributes of newer ships like the Sovereign and Defiant, when they really should have resembled the Galaxy class family. Not to mention that I simply find them aesthetically unpleasing. The angled nacelles and sharp edges of the saucers are just too severe for me. I prefer the curved lines of Probert and Sternbach designs.
I will say that I liked the Akira best out of the four, but then so many other people had such a hardon for that ship (and that it became the basis for the two crappiest designs in the history of Trek, the Titan and the NX-01) that I quickly lost my enthusiasm for it.
But if you love them, more power to you. I'm all for having new designs, but I think the wrong people have been given the reigns for that (I'm looking at you, John Eaves.)
[ January 21, 2022, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: Dukhat ]
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Dammit, everyone was having a good time, then knickers got in a twist. (Sigh)
Lokk, I get that some of y'all reeeeally like Discovery. That's not a crime, nor is the reverse. I didn't reference any of the Discoverse background ships in the opening post or direct any criticism their way (both from kindness and apathy), but I wouldn't have complained had someone brought them up for criticism herein. We were all having fun.
quote:Originally posted by Lee: What universe mixing? They’re the same. Accept it.
quote: stop bringing it up all the time because it’s irrelevant.
It was noted entirely tangentially. There was another similar outburst to yours by another poster recently. Not sure why y'all are so touchy about it, but since others are allowed to disagree with your opinions whenever they like I'll try to remember to also go full Cato the Censor and recommend the destruction of Carthage in every post where the universe distinction is noted. Satisfied?
quote: But just one ship out of that list being open to challenge doesn’t invalidate the others or the methodology. Nor can you accept visual retconning in the case of the TOS remasters but then use potential visual retconning in DSC to justify it being in a different universe.
Justify? I have nothing to justify nor did I make any attempt to do so. I simply pointed out that at the link you supplied, the guy ditched a visible Constitution in TOS and assigned a Discovery ship class to an existing claimed registry, basing his reasoning there and elsewhere on the same Starbase 11 registry matching that was already criticized and otherwise commented on in this thread.
If you're ditching whole-ass visible ships, then why not the association of name and registry? Just do whatever the hell you want, at that point.
That was my point, not any imagined sleight against Discovery, its quality, its ratings, its ships, its cast, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad absurdum.
Sheesh.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
quote:Originally posted by Dukhat: My bias against the FC ships (and I freely admit that it's my bias alone)
Not really. But, it's kinda funny, 'cause the more I've looked at background ships en masse lately, the more I've realized they almost all kinda suck in some or many ways. Sometimes, the effort to make something 'different' just doesn't pay off.
quote: But if you love them, more power to you. I'm all for having new designs, but I think the wrong people have been given the reigns for that (I'm looking at you, John Eaves.)
Seconded.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
I actually liked the St(r)eamrunner better than the Akira. The Norway's a bit boring and the Saber was the ugliest Starfleet vessel until the Vengeance came along (which was replaced by Discovery and the 32nd century weird shapes).
-------------------- "Never give up. And never, under any circumstances, no matter what - never face the facts." - Ruth Gordon
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Spike: The Norway's a bit boring
Funny you say that. Nobody seems quite sure what the Norway's deflector area looks like, but the version I found has a big pit and the big round deflector right under the bridge.
As I rebuilt that area in my deweirdifying I ended up turning the ship upside down, and lost heart: it's a regular neckless Connie-style ship with funny deflector placement and a shorn saucer top.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
The Steamrunner class will be making a return in PIC season 2 (as an alternate universe Federation ship at least.) They are using the Eaglemoss CGI model for it, since the original model no longer exists. So if the trend is to use EM CGI models in future Trek shows, then we may end up seeing ships like the Norway that were lost after the Berman era ended. As much as I don’t like the FC ships, it makes sense to use the existing EM assets for future shows. Pretty much every Trek ship EM has made has an accompanying CGI model for it.
-------------------- "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
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
And they're more often than not incorrect.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Yes, but now that Trek is using Eaglemoss models on-screen, they’ve gone from being generally not-always-correct to 100% screen-accurate.
Registered: Sep 2013
| IP: Logged
posted
Give Eaglemoss *some* credit… they’re more accurate than many of the Fact Files diagrams.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
