I don't know Artan last I checked nothing else showed frigging Purple Klingons before discovery. Or had randomly smashed together bits that was called ship design. Or stupid random stuff like the sarcophagus thing.
Watch TAS sometime. (Of course, that was in part because one of the animation designers was apparently colorblind, but...)
I don't know Artan last I checked nothing else showed frigging Purple Klingons before discovery. Or had randomly smashed together bits that was called ship design. Or stupid random stuff like the sarcophagus thing.
Watch TAS sometime. (Of course, that was in part because one of the animation designers was apparently colorblind, but...)
I don't really mind how crazy/poorly made the props/sets are - TOS is one of my favourate series' and it had terrible prop's(and even worse 'klingons' than Disc, which where boderline 'blackface').
I found season 1 of Disc utterely boring, because (I felt) the story was plodding - everytime a Klingon scene occured, my heart sank, as I knew I would be listening to another bout of watching people with too many prothetics attempting to speak 'klingon', whilst they could barley even move thier lips. The subtitles did not bother me, I use them all the time due to my hearing problems.
I found season 1 of Disc so boring, that I had to watch it in very small chunks - every other Trek I have ever watched, I could not get enough of it, and avidly awaited the next episode.
Season 2 improved things for me ALOT - the sense of humour made things a lot more 'Treky' for me. I still find the lead actress incredibly irritating - and I'm glad that they gave some of the other crew more air time. I'm praying that Saru becomes the captain rather than her in Season 3.
But that's just me, many other people loved every bit of Discovery and cant get enough of it.
Or had randomly smashed together bits that was called ship design.
None of them look smashed together. Even the unconventional designs like the Daspu' are fully formed and realised designs.
There are exactly three (M'chala, Qugh, and Sech) that resemble nothing else seen or look particularly 'Klingon'.
The Daspu' and Batlh resemble the Klingon transport from TNG and the rebel transport from ENT respectively, the BortaS bir, Qoj, Qow, and Veqlargh are clearly the same style of design as all Klingon battlecruisers from the Raptor to the Negh'Var and the Chargh, Jach, 'etlh, and Na'Qjej may not look like the traditional battlecruiser but they are clearly Klingon ships with the first two being weapon pods on a engine and the second two being flying blades for stabbing other starships in the face.
Or stupid random stuff like the sarcophagus thing.
Not stupid and certainly not random. It's a Negh'Var but built a long time ago and meant to be exactly what it is. If you can't see ancient Klingons using the dead as armour plating for one of their first starships then you really don't know much about Klingons.
So, there remains exactly zero differences of any significance between the DSC Klingons and any other anymore than, say, between the TUC and IS Klingons, or the TMP and ENT ones.
Watch TAS sometime. (Of course, that was in part because one of the animation designers was apparently colorblind, but...)
The Klingons in TAS weren't purple, their uniforms were.
Of course, Kol was the only purple Klingon in DSC anyway, despite westx211's hyperbole, and considering his father was reddish white (caucasian like) it was probably some sort of face paint anyway.
The main skin colours in DSCS1 were blueish grey and brown, though that dosn't support the argument so the singular purple Klingon was chosen. Voq, Kol and T'Kuvma all had unique colours in DSC, the rest all looked the same as always.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
And the KT films are not JJ films. He did the first one, had very little to do with the second, and sod all to do with the third.
Um, JJ Abrams DIRECTED "Star Trek Into Darkness" <--- IE He had quite a bit to do with it. It was the last film (Star Trek Beyond) he didn't have much of a personal/direct hand in.
Formerly known as Armsman from June 2008 to June 20, 2012 PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
And the KT films are not JJ films. He did the first one, had very little to do with the second, and sod all to do with the third.
Um, JJ Abrams DIRECTED "Star Trek Into Darkness" <--- IE He had quite a bit to do with it. It was the last film (Star Trek Beyond) he didn't have much of a personal/direct hand in.
All of the production work was Kurtzman in ID. Abrams produced 09 as well as directing it, he only directed the second one. Directors are not the driving force of films they once were. By ID Abrams was already moving on from ST, leaving the other three to do with it as they would.
And even if he was as involved in ID as he was in 09 it change nothing. The film series is not named after the director of the first two, full stop. None of the series are named after the people involved because they all have different executive producers, producers, directors, and writers and the KT films are no different.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
And the KT films are not JJ films. He did the first one, had very little to do with the second, and sod all to do with the third.
Um, JJ Abrams DIRECTED "Star Trek Into Darkness" <--- IE He had quite a bit to do with it. It was the last film (Star Trek Beyond) he didn't have much of a personal/direct hand in.
And Beyond, imo, was the only good one of the three. It FELT like a TOS story.
Artan you're arguing 2 completely opposite points. Either the designs are just as much Klingon as anything else, or that it doesn't matter that they don't look like anything else and they don't have to actually fit in.
In addition, bluish grey still does support my argument I don't have any idea why it wouldn't? The argument was they look nothing like old klingons who weren't blue and purple? So you actually supported my argument with additional evidence?
And from what I saw about how the Klingon treat their dead in every star trek series they wouldn't put them in coffins in order to shield their ship they would just toss the bodies out. Once theyve done their rituals the bodies is worthless. Klingons don't really do much with it.
Also klingons were brown in the original series. Or atleast very tan. They definitely weren't blue or purple.
I don't know Artan last I checked nothing else showed frigging Purple Klingons before discovery.
Last I checked, nothing showed brown Klingons before TMP, or redish ones before ID. You got a point there?
The TOS Klingons had several types with different coloring and eyebrow shapes. The Kang style Klingons had dark bronze skin tones that could be termed "brown" readily enough.
Or had randomly smashed together bits that was called ship design.
None of them look smashed together. Even the unconventional designs like the Daspu' are fully formed and realised designs.
There are exactly three (M'chala, Qugh, and Sech) that resemble nothing else seen or look particularly 'Klingon'.
The Daspu' and Batlh resemble the Klingon transport from TNG and the rebel transport from ENT respectively, the BortaS bir, Qoj, Qow, and Veqlargh are clearly the same style of design as all Klingon battlecruisers from the Raptor to the Negh'Var and the Chargh, Jach, 'etlh, and Na'Qjej may not look like the traditional battlecruiser but they are clearly Klingon ships with the first two being weapon pods on a engine and the second two being flying blades for stabbing other starships in the face.
The Chargh and Jach look somewhat Lyran to me and probably do so to many other Star Fleet Battles players, which though a minor point does not help much with suspension of disbelief. And as the most un-Trek feeling of Star Trek series it needs all the help it can get in damping down disbelief.
Likewise the Bstlh looks like an ENT Orion design more than anything Klingon (they really should have made some comment about that house buying them instead of building them, it would have improved the realism some by showing interstellar commerce and it is similar to the way smaller nations (or in DSC's case houses) often buy ships from larger ones in the real world). DSC really missed a lot of nuances that would have improved it a lot.
Or stupid random stuff like the sarcophagus thing.
Not stupid and certainly not random. It's a Negh'Var but built a long time ago and meant to be exactly what it is. If you can't see ancient Klingons using the dead as armour plating for one of their first starships then you really don't know much about Klingons.
So, there remains exactly zero differences of any significance between the DSC Klingons and any other anymore than, say, between the TUC and IS Klingons, or the TMP and ENT ones.
It is true that the Sarcophagus ship resembled the Negh'Var enough to spark recognition when seen from the right angles, though they somehow managed to give it a kind of silly stuffed dragon toy look. The ceremonial drek they wasted so much time on made it clear that the coffins were not "armor" or anything on a practical level, they were the equivalent of carrying holy relics into battle which totally goes against all other cultural depictions of the Klingons (in TOS troops were "just numbers" and in the rest bodies were just empty shells to be disposed of after the death howl rite). Now, if instead they welded the bat'leths or other weapons of legendary heroes to the hull that might be a different story, but even that is a stretch at best.
neither the jach nor the chargh look lyran to me...and speaking of, i wonder when cryptic will realize that they have two different ships with the chargh designation
they renamed the player version of the cleave ship to na'qjej, but the NPC versions are still called chargh
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
The overwhelming majority of Trek fans have never heard of FASA or Lyrans. All Klingon actors in TOS were caucasians in a bit of swarthy paint, no other ethnicity was ever present.
Which is why Discovery should have had more diversity for their Klingons. If they went with the various different variations of Klingons, then the Discovery Klingons would have been more tolerable. Could have had the TOS Klingons, TNG Klingons, and Discovery Klingons on the same show with maybe one of them being lower class citizens or slaves. Having the TOS Klingons as slaves in Discovery could explain why we never see the Discovery Klingons. The lack of diversity is the same problem that the Romulan and Cardassian Empires have. They are supposed to be interstellar empires and yet we never see of the loyal members of the races that these empires have conquered.
they DID have someone who looked TNG-ish in the finale - the male who goes 'yes, my chancellor' after l'rell orders the fleet to fire on the armada - around 2:09 here
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
Artan you're arguing 2 completely opposite points. Either the designs are just as much Klingon as anything else, or that it doesn't matter that they don't look like anything else and they don't have to actually fit in.
The fact that they're all different and yet have points of commonalities that the DSC versions also share is the point. Despite the differences between every version they're still all recognisable. It's a pretty obvious point and didn't really need spelling out.
In addition, bluish grey still does support my argument I don't have any idea why it wouldn't? The argument was they look nothing like old klingons who weren't blue and purple? So you actually supported my argument with additional evidence?
Except the bluish grey is just a minor shade change from the flesh colour of the caucasian Klingons and not significant enough to even notice. That also didn't need explaining.
And from what I saw about how the Klingon treat their dead in every star trek series they wouldn't put them in coffins in order to shield their ship they would just toss the bodies out. Once theyve done their rituals the bodies is worthless. Klingons don't really do much with it.
Considering Klingon mummification glyphs were mentioned previously in the franchise and Klingons general utility nature strapping the dead to the outside of their ship in the past is clearly Klingon behaviour. It also helps that T'Kuvma's mob are religious nuts and are supposed to do things differently.
Also klingons were brown in the original series. Or atleast very tan. They definitely weren't blue or purple.
Wearing goldish brown face is not being brown, it just makes them white and shiny.
You keep fixating on the fact that Kol is purple despite already knowing he's a single Klingon and his father has a natural skin tone so it's probably not Kols natural skin colour either. This is what happens when you don't read properly. You need simple points explaining and you skip the important parts.
The TOS Klingons had several types with different coloring and eyebrow shapes. The Kang style Klingons had dark bronze skin tones that could be termed "brown" readily enough.
No, they're shiny gold/tan. You could call them brown if you wanted but they're still not the same brown they used for the Klingons from TMP to late TNG (excluding TUC).
The Chargh and Jach look somewhat Lyran to me and probably do so to many other Star Fleet Battles players, which though a minor point does not help much with suspension of disbelief. And as the most un-Trek feeling of Star Trek series it needs all the help it can get in damping down disbelief.
I don't really care if they look like the ships of some random non-canon race to you and thankfully the producers don't either. It dosn't make a difference to the fact they still conjure the image of a ship a Klingon would build. And DSC is not the most 'un-Trek feeling of Star Trek', there's no such thing.
Likewise the Bstlh looks like an ENT Orion design more than anything Klingon (they really should have made some comment about that house buying them instead of building them, it would have improved the realism some by showing interstellar commerce and it is similar to the way smaller nations (or in DSC's case houses) often buy ships from larger ones in the real world). DSC really missed a lot of nuances that would have improved it a lot.
Firstly, as you;ve already seen in the other topic, there is no Orion design theme. There's 5 Orion ships seen onscreen (well, one is technically on a display), the Interceptor looks Romulan, the Barge looks Hierarchy, the TOS one looks unique, and the TAS one looks Ferengi. They share no features in common so you can't say the Bstlh looks like any Orions ships. It does however look like this. Not as though they were for the same purpose, but enough to say somebody who built one could have built the other.
That's the sort of thing you can headcanon all you want because the show is never going to waste time expositing the origin of a 3 second ship. If you want to believe it's bought from Orions, go for it, you just can't use that headcanon as some sort of argument against the ship itself (like you tried with the Jach and Chargh).
It is true that the Sarcophagus ship resembled the Negh'Var enough to spark recognition when seen from the right angles, though they somehow managed to give it a kind of silly stuffed dragon toy look. The ceremonial drek they wasted so much time on made it clear that the coffins were not "armor" or anything on a practical level, they were the equivalent of carrying holy relics into battle which totally goes against all other cultural depictions of the Klingons (in TOS troops were "just numbers" and in the rest bodies were just empty shells to be disposed of after the death howl rite). Now, if instead they welded the bat'leths or other weapons of legendary heroes to the hull that might be a different story, but even that is a stretch at best.
You realise the Sarcophagus is not a combat ship right? It's a floating temple. The interior of the Sech and the bridge of the Cleave ship don't look like the Sarcophagus, and the exteriors don't have the same scaled look because they're about 100 years newer.
The Sarcophagus dates back to a time the Klingons were more into dead people and crewed by religious nutcases who are slightly more pragmatic enough to use the corpses as armour.
It is not a modern ship, it's not a combat ship, it's designed to be over designed.
Which is why Discovery should have had more diversity for their Klingons. If they went with the various different variations of Klingons, then the Discovery Klingons would have been more tolerable. Could have had the TOS Klingons, TNG Klingons, and Discovery Klingons on the same show with maybe one of them being lower class citizens or slaves. Having the TOS Klingons as slaves in Discovery could explain why we never see the Discovery Klingons. The lack of diversity is the same problem that the Romulan and Cardassian Empires have. They are supposed to be interstellar empires and yet we never see of the loyal members of the races that these empires have conquered.
They did have diversity. Being too lazy to watch the show is not an excuse not to use Google.
They had Klingons with long heads (L'rell), ones with short heads (Kol, T'Kuvma), ones with massive stupid looking heads (L'Rells uncle), ones with heavy makeup but less defined ridges (T'Kuvma), ones with lighter makeup and pronounced ridges (L'Rell is S2 and the woman on the council), ones that look exactly like TNG Klingons but better (K'Vort, Kol-Sha), ones with faces of molten plastic (Voq), and ones that looked like DSC TNG hybrids (Voq ad L'Rell's kid).
We don't need to see 1970s makeup reproduced perfectly to see that Kol-Sha is a TNG style Klingon who's makeup is done on a higher budget.
I agree there should be more types of Klingons in DSC as I consider the KT makeup perfect, I'd love to see that one. I just don't feel the need to pretend there is no diversity in DSC.
they DID have someone who looked TNG-ish in the finale - the male who goes 'yes, my chancellor' after l'rell orders the fleet to fire on the armada - around 2:09 here
His name is K'Vort, after whom the Bird of Prey is named.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
The Chargh and Jach look somewhat Lyran to me and probably do so to many other Star Fleet Battles players, which though a minor point does not help much with suspension of disbelief. And as the most un-Trek feeling of Star Trek series it needs all the help it can get in damping down disbelief.
I don't really care if they look like the ships of some random non-canon race to you and thankfully the producers don't either. It dosn't make a difference to the fact they still conjure the image of a ship a Klingon would build. And DSC is not the most 'un-Trek feeling of Star Trek', there's no such thing.
Likewise the Bstlh looks like an ENT Orion design more than anything Klingon (they really should have made some comment about that house buying them instead of building them, it would have improved the realism some by showing interstellar commerce and it is similar to the way smaller nations (or in DSC's case houses) often buy ships from larger ones in the real world). DSC really missed a lot of nuances that would have improved it a lot.
Firstly, as you;ve already seen in the other topic, there is no Orion design theme. There's 5 Orion ships seen onscreen (well, one is technically on a display), the Interceptor looks Romulan, the Barge looks Hierarchy, the TOS one looks unique, and the TAS one looks Ferengi. They share no features in common so you can't say the Bstlh looks like any Orions ships. It does however look like this. Not as though they were for the same purpose, but enough to say somebody who built one could have built the other.
That's the sort of thing you can headcanon all you want because the show is never going to waste time expositing the origin of a 3 second ship. If you want to believe it's bought from Orions, go for it, you just can't use that headcanon as some sort of argument against the ship itself (like you tried with the Jach and Chargh).
First off, DSC does not feel like the other Star Treks to many people, so there IS such a thing. I linked a video in another thread that goes into the why of that already.
Second, while the few Orion ship designs shown in canon are not a lot alike they are a very old people that in theory could have thousands of different designs from various periods so five that do not look a lot alike is hardly surprising. And, aside from ship designs themselves they do have a style, it is a very ornate, over-the-top, psuedo Middle Eastern one sometimes called "Arabian Nightmare" in Hollywood, and the Bstlh fits that style quite well, it looks like something Aladdin would fly in an "Arabian Nights in Space" type cartoon. It also fits in with the look of the Orion Intruder/Scout seen in the remastered "Journey to Babel" even though it is so clunky compared to it.
Again with that headcanon nonsense? Someone mentioned earlier that the DSC Klingon ships reminded them of something else, I just gave another example, one that would be familiar to SFB players. No "headcanon" involved at all, just similarity of looks.
It is true that the Sarcophagus ship resembled the Negh'Var enough to spark recognition when seen from the right angles, though they somehow managed to give it a kind of silly stuffed dragon toy look. The ceremonial drek they wasted so much time on made it clear that the coffins were not "armor" or anything on a practical level, they were the equivalent of carrying holy relics into battle which totally goes against all other cultural depictions of the Klingons (in TOS troops were "just numbers" and in the rest bodies were just empty shells to be disposed of after the death howl rite). Now, if instead they welded the bat'leths or other weapons of legendary heroes to the hull that might be a different story, but even that is a stretch at best.
You realise the Sarcophagus is not a combat ship right? It's a floating temple. The interior of the Sech and the bridge of the Cleave ship don't look like the Sarcophagus, and the exteriors don't have the same scaled look because they're about 100 years newer.
The Sarcophagus dates back to a time the Klingons were more into dead people and crewed by religious nutcases who are slightly more pragmatic enough to use the corpses as armour.
It is not a modern ship, it's not a combat ship, it's designed to be over designed.
I know, in the passage you quote from my earlier comment I pointe that same ceremonial thing out to someone who commented that they "armored the hull with their dead" or words to that effect. And what I said about the practice of carrying dead body relics into battle like that not being supported in any other Trek is still true. And even if the ship is not primarily a war ship it is still armed and used for war and their ceremony makes it plain they are using them in a manner similar to the medieval European practice regarding "holy relics" as a rally point in war.
First off, DSC does not feel like the other Star Treks to many people, so there IS such a thing. I linked a video in another thread that goes into the why of that already.
If it dosn't feel like it to you, just say you. Don't make an objective statement that it dosn't feel like the other incarnations of Trek.
TOS feels nothing like DS9, TNG feels nothing like the KT, VGR feels nothing like TAS, but they all feel exactly like Trek, as does DSC. There is absolutely no 'standard' pre-2017 Trek feeling and anybody drawing an arbitrary line at 2017 as for what 'feels Trek' to them is doing it solely to separate DSC from the rest. There's absolutely no objective reason for why a line would be drawn at 2017 and why all pre-2017 Trek can be lumped together, so I've absolutely no interest in watching a video that tries to justify prejudging DSC with bollocks.
Second, while the few Orion ship designs shown in canon are not a lot alike they are a very old people that in theory could have thousands of different designs from various periods so five that do not look a lot alike is hardly surprising.
I didn't say it was surprising. I've made no comment on my feeling on Orion ship design other than the fact they don't have a unifying ethos. As it happens, I like it, for the same reason I like the variety DSC brings to the Klingon ships, it's realistic.
And, aside from ship designs themselves they do have a style, it is a very ornate, over-the-top, psuedo Middle Eastern one sometimes called "Arabian Nightmare" in Hollywood, and the Bstlh fits that style quite well, it looks like something Aladdin would fly in an "Arabian Nights in Space" type cartoon.
The guy who owns the Barge in ENT has that going for him and the dancing girl in The Cage. The slavers in ENT have a Mad Max type thing going on, the ones who captured Mudd in Short Treks were similar, and the Orion Quarter on Kronos is a 'wretched hive' type thing, not 'Arabian Nightmare'.
It also fits in with the look of the Orion Intruder/Scout seen in the remastered "Journey to Babel" even though it is so clunky compared to it.
I can't do anything about your eyesight. Other than possessing windows it has nothing in common with it. There's no similar shapes, no similarities in profile, no shared components, different colour, different propulsion system.
Again with that headcanon nonsense? Someone mentioned earlier that the DSC Klingon ships reminded them of something else, I just gave another example, one that would be familiar to SFB players. No "headcanon" involved at all, just similarity of looks.
Headcanon is the story people tell in their own heads for filling in backstories and exposition a medium would not go into. If you think that's some sort of insult then you're wrong.
I know, in the passage you quote from my earlier comment I pointe that same ceremonial thing out to someone who commented that they "armored the hull with their dead" or words to that effect. And what I said about the practice of carrying dead body relics into battle like that not being supported in any other Trek is still true. And even if the ship is not primarily a war ship it is still armed and used for war and their ceremony makes it plain they are using them in a manner similar to the medieval European practice regarding "holy relics" as a rally point in war.
None of that is in disagreement with my last post. THe bit you;re disagreeing with was my earlier one where I said they used the dead as armour. I wasn't literally saying they ran out of tritanium part way through and decided to recycle the builders.
Your comment on if it's supported in other Trek is irrelevant because T'Kuvma is an outcast. It's not standard Klingon practice to coat a ship in tombs or to style them like cathedrals and it's not in DSC either.
It's easy to extrapolate T'Kuvmas ideas from the bits of Klingon religion we know about; primarily for Worf who's an unreliable source as most Klingons don't give a sod about religion or honour beyond lip service (hypocrites are infinitely preferable over T'Kuvma's zealots).
The overall point remains, as every new series comes out, it's is nitpicked to such a degree that it becomes a virtual 'coastline paradox' where all that exist are differences. This lasts until the next series comes out and the previously dissected series is now part of the beloved pedestal and the new series is broken down.
Only from a fake retrospect of the past can DSC be seen as significantly different. It's down to users like westx211 to stop saying the first thing that comes into their heads and spend a second thinking about how different it actually is. If the Sarcophagus had appeared in DS9, it would be part of the pedestal of perfection and any issues it may hypothetically have will be played down to insignificance (like most of VGR) in order to continue the artificial divide that is currently separating DSC from the rest. All the stupid criticisms of how different DSC supposedly looks were also used for TMP, and now things are criticised for not looking like TMP.
There's not a single criticism leveled at DSC that couldn't also be found elsewhere in the franchise. No difference of 'feeling' that wasn't also found in every other incarnation of the franchise. No concepts, characters, ships, or looks that are not fully Star Trek in every way.
And I look forward to Picard coming out so people can lie about that rather than DSC for a change.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
> @artan42 said: > crypticarmsman wrote: » > > artan42 wrote: » > > And the KT films are not JJ films. He did the first one, had very little to do with the second, and sod all to do with the third. > > > > > Um, JJ Abrams DIRECTED "Star Trek Into Darkness" <--- IE He had quite a bit to do with it. It was the last film (Star Trek Beyond) he didn't have much of a personal/direct hand in. > > > > > All of the production work was Kurtzman in ID. Abrams produced 09 as well as directing it, he only directed the second one. Directors are not the driving force of films they once were. By ID Abrams was already moving on from ST, leaving the other three to do with it as they would. > > And even if he was as involved in ID as he was in 09 it change nothing. The film series is not named after the director of the first two, full stop. None of the series are named after the people involved because they all have different executive producers, producers, directors, and writers and the KT films are no different.
Your pain runs deep.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
First off, DSC does not feel like the other Star Treks to many people, so there IS such a thing. I linked a video in another thread that goes into the why of that already.
If it dosn't feel like it to you, just say you. Don't make an objective statement that it dosn't feel like the other incarnations of Trek.
If it was just me who sees that difference then I would have said just me. It isn't though, it is one of the most seen statements on Trek (and sometimes other) discussion boards, that DSC feels different from the other (TV-based) Treks. On the other hand, the same observation is rare between DSC and movie-based Trek since the movies tend to be the same action format as DSC (and most who say there is one between DSC and the movies are looking at the props and whatnot, not the plot structure and shooting techniques). And just to clear things up, I was not dissing DSC by saying it is action format, that is just a factual observation, I do not have an axe to grind about which format type they choose.
TOS feels nothing like DS9, TNG feels nothing like the KT, VGR feels nothing like TAS, but they all feel exactly like Trek, as does DSC. There is absolutely no 'standard' pre-2017 Trek feeling and anybody drawing an arbitrary line at 2017 as for what 'feels Trek' to them is doing it solely to separate DSC from the rest. There's absolutely no objective reason for why a line would be drawn at 2017 and why all pre-2017 Trek can be lumped together, so I've absolutely no interest in watching a video that tries to justify prejudging DSC with bollocks.
As I said, that video is not a rant against DSC (though the maker of it does occasionally criticize the way DSC handles the style at times). Also, the "line" you talk about would not be a single one drawn between two blocks of time. While the mood is darker, the action movie plotting style (some call it genre or subgenre but that word is so overused it often confuses people as to which sense it is being use in) of DSC goes all the way back to the early movies and exists alongside the various mixes of drama and procedural subtypes they used on TV Trek at the same time.
We are talking about two entirely different things here, and without a common frame of reference this part of the conversation will inevitably go nowhere.
Second, while the few Orion ship designs shown in canon are not a lot alike they are a very old people that in theory could have thousands of different designs from various periods so five that do not look a lot alike is hardly surprising.
I didn't say it was surprising. I've made no comment on my feeling on Orion ship design other than the fact they don't have a unifying ethos. As it happens, I like it, for the same reason I like the variety DSC brings to the Klingon ships, it's realistic.
We seem to agree on the point that a variety of ships is more realistic anyway, despite differences in perception of the styles involved.
And, aside from ship designs themselves they do have a style, it is a very ornate, over-the-top, psuedo Middle Eastern one sometimes called "Arabian Nightmare" in Hollywood, and the Bstlh fits that style quite well, it looks like something Aladdin would fly in an "Arabian Nights in Space" type cartoon.
The guy who owns the Barge in ENT has that going for him and the dancing girl in The Cage. The slavers in ENT have a Mad Max type thing going on, the ones who captured Mudd in Short Treks were similar, and the Orion Quarter on Kronos is a 'wretched hive' type thing, not 'Arabian Nightmare'.
Whenever we see Orions in their own settings the "Arabian Nightmare" style is present to at least some degree. The depictions of the slave market and whatnot in ENT are just the kind of starkly utilitarian rat traps that a black market works in (at least in Hollywood productions anyway). The pheromone thing they push so hard in ENT could be why the males go in for cyber-enhancements (as some sort of compensation for instance) but that is not particularly relevant. Despite the grungy cyberpunk overtones (which could very well have been a fad in that lower layer of society at the time) some undertones of the Arabian Nightmare style exist if you look.
The Qo'noS Orions are probably not following their own style as much as conforming to Klingon expectations in their clothing and kiosks and whatnot. It would make sense with the way the Klingons themselves are presented, they would not respect the bikini clad Orions sex-kitten business approach at all, especially since the more alien nature of them could very well make the pheromones and usual "sex sells" business style useless in Klingon territory, and the Orions have nearly always been depicted as brutally pragmatic in their dealings.
It also fits in with the look of the Orion Intruder/Scout seen in the remastered "Journey to Babel" even though it is so clunky compared to it.
I can't do anything about your eyesight. Other than possessing windows it has nothing in common with it. There's no similar shapes, no similarities in profile, no shared components, different colour, different propulsion system.
It depends on whether you are looking at style cues or literal shapes. Stylistically they do have similarity though the actual shapes are somewhat different. I know a lot of people cannot see the WWII style cues in the NX though the designer did an excellent job of "retroing" the Akira into the NX using subtle P-38 Lightning curves and details either.
Again with that headcanon nonsense? Someone mentioned earlier that the DSC Klingon ships reminded them of something else, I just gave another example, one that would be familiar to SFB players. No "headcanon" involved at all, just similarity of looks.
Headcanon is the story people tell in their own heads for filling in backstories and exposition a medium would not go into. If you think that's some sort of insult then you're wrong.
I know what "headcanon" is, I have written for fanzines before and fan writer circles use the term a lot. Unfortunately it is an often misused term that some people do misuse as an insult (you are correct in that it is not naturally insulting). Either way, the comparisons I made were not headcanon, merely observations (headcanon would be claiming that they are really Lyran designs stolen by the Klingons or some such thing, not just that the design reminds me of Lyran ships from SFB).
The overall point remains, as every new series comes out, it's is nitpicked to such a degree that it becomes a virtual 'coastline paradox' where all that exist are differences. This lasts until the next series comes out and the previously dissected series is now part of the beloved pedestal and the new series is broken down.
I agree on the first part more or less, though it is not always to the point of 'coastline paradox'. Likewise, a show usually does not end up added to a pedestal once the next one comes out, it just gets less attention so the "buzz" is less (though there is an effect where people get used to a show over time somewhat too).
Only from a fake retrospect of the past can DSC be seen as significantly different. It's down to users like westx211 to stop saying the first thing that comes into their heads and spend a second thinking about how different it actually is. If the Sarcophagus had appeared in DS9, it would be part of the pedestal of perfection and any issues it may hypothetically have will be played down to insignificance (like most of VGR) in order to continue the artificial divide that is currently separating DSC from the rest. All the stupid criticisms of how different DSC supposedly looks were also used for TMP, and now things are criticised for not looking like TMP.
There's not a single criticism leveled at DSC that couldn't also be found elsewhere in the franchise. No difference of 'feeling' that wasn't also found in every other incarnation of the franchise. No concepts, characters, ships, or looks that are not fully Star Trek in every way.
And I look forward to Picard coming out so people can lie about that rather than DSC for a change.
Few if any are "lying" about it, people have different perceptions and some see what others do not and vice versa.
There is a definite difference in tone and style to DSC compared to the other TV series Treks (though not so much the movies), you just have to see them (and not everyone does, a lot depends on exactly how you look at it). The plot style, the camera work, the lighting, and even the music are all primarily action movie style in DSC and not in all the other series.
It is true that some of the same criticisms can be leveled at both DSC and the other TV Treks, but not as many as are common between DSC and the movie Treks, and there are plenty that are unique to DSC (and the others have some unique ones too). The biggest problem is that Moonves seems to have been going for something closer to Kelvin than Prime in a lot of ways, and the production was deliberately steered away from any resemblance to TOS (anecdotes from the people involved contained such things as the fact that, hanging in the design room, was a big sign that screamed in big bold letters "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!").
Okay, so here we have a problem. I've replied to every point raised and the forum wiped my post this morning and I don't have the drive to try again so I'll only address the points to do with thematic continuity this time and possibly go back and edit this when I'm in a calmer frame of mind towards computers. If you feel the other points were more important, then say so, but I feel these ones are more relevant to this particular thread.
If it was just me who sees that difference then I would have said just me. It isn't though, it is one of the most seen statements on Trek (and sometimes other) discussion boards, that DSC feels different from the other (TV-based) Treks. On the other hand, the same observation is rare between DSC and movie-based Trek since the movies tend to be the same action format as DSC (and most who say there is one between DSC and the movies are looking at the props and whatnot, not the plot structure and shooting techniques). And just to clear things up, I was not dissing DSC by saying it is action format, that is just a factual observation, I do not have an axe to grind about which format type they choose.
There is a definite difference in tone and style to DSC compared to the other TV series Treks (though not so much the movies), you just have to see them (and not everyone does, a lot depends on exactly how you look at it). The plot style, the camera work, the lighting, and even the music are all primarily action movie style in DSC and not in all the other series.
I have moved these two quotes to here because they say the same thing. I'll summarise;
DSC does not and can not feel significantly different from pre-2017 Trek for the simple reason the pre-2017 Trek does not have a unified feel. To me they can all be split into eras as follows:
TOS/TAS: Simplistic, unconnected 60s morality plays. Characters exist as cyphers, there are no B-Plots, filming style is stationary and drama is shown through overactive soundtracks and dramatic but impossible lighting.
TOS films/TNG/VGR/TNG Films/DS9: Characters are dynamic and change through the passage of time, plots are linked across multiple episodes or even series', each episode will have up to three plots going at once, filming style and lighting are more dynamic, music is more generic, experimental camera work is used to offer character perspectives, and consequences exist, with continuity, as a result, often tighter.
ENT, KT, DSC: Action is fully integrated into how the episodes are written and storyboarded due to the ability of CGI to fully take over a scene (previously only seen in the TNG films), the ability to merge effects and live action into one means the real cameras have to match the digital ones so a more swooping, cinematic feel is used. Being in-universe set in the past and out-of-universe made in the current millennium, the trend is for Sci-fi to look more 'grounded'. Episodes still retain multiple plots but they often aren't resolved in an episode or a two-parter but last throughout the series.
DSC is not constructed any differently from ENT other than being made 15 years later with all the differences being just how much more seamlessly we can integrate visual and digital worlds. To imply that the differences in how, for example, plots are structured in DSC and ENT are so different that the plots of ENT are more similar to TOS than DSC is flat out wrong. This goes for all the other differences outlined above. The idea that this is somehow a widely reflected viewpoint and therefor true is an argumentum ad populum. The only difference is that gap between ENT and DSC means that all the others have been blurred into an amorphous blob by nostalgia.
I agree on the first part more or less, though it is not always to the point of 'coastline paradox'. Likewise, a show usually does not end up added to a pedestal once the next one comes out, it just gets less attention so the "buzz" is less (though there is an effect where people get used to a show over time somewhat too).
This is not an argument that pans out. There have been no end of Reddit posts, Facebook shared content, blogs, YouTube videos, and forum posts reevaluating (in particular) the KT and ENT in light of DSC.
Few if any are "lying" about it, people have different perceptions and some see what others do not and vice versa.
A misrepresentation is a lie. Both post-2017 and pre-2017 Trek are commonly misrepresented in order to vilify the former and deify the latter. The implication made earlier that DSC suffers from plot holes of a magnitude heretofore unseen in the franchise is flat out wrong by any objective standard. The same goes for taking insignificant details and projecting them as a whole experience, for example, using the Daspu' as a example for all of DSCs Klingon ships to be unrecognisable, or a singular purple Klingon as evidence that their skin colours have gone wild. These are magnifying the smallest of sample sizes into ideas that are representative of a whole, bombarding somebody with a gish gallop of insignificant details misrepresented as a systemic issue. This is lying.
It is true that some of the same criticisms can be leveled at both DSC and the other TV Treks, but not as many as are common between DSC and the movie Treks, and there are plenty that are unique to DSC (and the others have some unique ones too).
There are no criticism to the structure of DSC (i.e. excluding series specific concepts like the Spore Drive for obvious reasons) that do not also aply, at least once, to every other instalment in the franchise.
The biggest problem is that Moonves seems to have been going for something closer to Kelvin than Prime in a lot of ways, and the production was deliberately steered away from any resemblance to TOS
This not a problem. This is a good thing. The franchise moved away from TOS the moment TMP was reimagined as a film and not as Phase II. No visuals of TOS remain in the franchise from the moment TMP was released. Gone are the pastel colours, white ships, and cold tone phasers. Gone are Russian Klingons and Chinese Romulans. Starfleet goes from a motif of red and black to one of grey and blue which perseveres into the future in VGR and the past in ENT and DSC. Klingons are Viking Samurai and Romulans are East Germans, the Federation are now the UN and not the USA. These are all deliberate changes that separate TOS from every other incarnation. Why would DSC need to retcon that?
(anecdotes from the people involved contained such things as the fact that, hanging in the design room, was a big sign that screamed in big bold letters "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!").
Good. That is the correct approach. The cylindrical nacelles exist on all ships from the ENT era up to the 2240s (excluding the Walker and NC Class). The Crossfield is a new launch in the 2250s and it (and the other DSC era ships) correctly have boxy nacelles as they are the type of nacelle used in all the new builds in the 70s. IT wouldn't make sense for Starfleet to make cylindrical nacelles, switch to boxy ones, then back to cylindrical nacelles, then back to boxy ones in the 70s and forever after.
I have pointed this out before, plenty of times. The Conni is not a TOS era (i.e. 2260s) ship, it is a relic of an older time, that receives at least two massive refits to keep it relevant. The Crossfield is a cutting edge new launch that will inspire the look of ships like the Excelsior.
Soon, I may even tackle the other thread I forgot about.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Okay, so here we have a problem. I've replied to every point raised and the forum wiped my post this morning and I don't have the drive to try again so I'll only address the points to do with thematic continuity this time and possibly go back and edit this when I'm in a calmer frame of mind towards computers. If you feel the other points were more important, then say so, but I feel these ones are more relevant to this particular thread.
If it was just me who sees that difference then I would have said just me. It isn't though, it is one of the most seen statements on Trek (and sometimes other) discussion boards, that DSC feels different from the other (TV-based) Treks. On the other hand, the same observation is rare between DSC and movie-based Trek since the movies tend to be the same action format as DSC (and most who say there is one between DSC and the movies are looking at the props and whatnot, not the plot structure and shooting techniques). And just to clear things up, I was not dissing DSC by saying it is action format, that is just a factual observation, I do not have an axe to grind about which format type they choose.
There is a definite difference in tone and style to DSC compared to the other TV series Treks (though not so much the movies), you just have to see them (and not everyone does, a lot depends on exactly how you look at it). The plot style, the camera work, the lighting, and even the music are all primarily action movie style in DSC and not in all the other series.
I have moved these two quotes to here because they say the same thing. I'll summarise;
DSC does not and can not feel significantly different from pre-2017 Trek for the simple reason the pre-2017 Trek does not have a unified feel. To me they can all be split into eras as follows:
TOS/TAS: Simplistic, unconnected 60s morality plays. Characters exist as cyphers, there are no B-Plots, filming style is stationary and drama is shown through overactive soundtracks and dramatic but impossible lighting.
TOS films/TNG/VGR/TNG Films/DS9: Characters are dynamic and change through the passage of time, plots are linked across multiple episodes or even series', each episode will have up to three plots going at once, filming style and lighting are more dynamic, music is more generic, experimental camera work is used to offer character perspectives, and consequences exist, with continuity, as a result, often tighter.
ENT, KT, DSC: Action is fully integrated into how the episodes are written and storyboarded due to the ability of CGI to fully take over a scene (previously only seen in the TNG films), the ability to merge effects and live action into one means the real cameras have to match the digital ones so a more swooping, cinematic feel is used. Being in-universe set in the past and out-of-universe made in the current millennium, the trend is for Sci-fi to look more 'grounded'. Episodes still retain multiple plots but they often aren't resolved in an episode or a two-parter but last throughout the series.
I am not trying to be nasty when I say this (everyone sees things differently, especially with different training and experiences) but that list has no bearing on what I meant by style (in the sense of genre/subgenre), and it is apparent that you do not see the way the shows relate to those styles.
DSC is not constructed any differently from ENT other than being made 15 years later with all the differences being just how much more seamlessly we can integrate visual and digital worlds. To imply that the differences in how, for example, plots are structured in DSC and ENT are so different that the plots of ENT are more similar to TOS than DSC is flat out wrong. This goes for all the other differences outlined above. The idea that this is somehow a widely reflected viewpoint and therefor true is an argumentum ad populum. The only difference is that gap between ENT and DSC means that all the others have been blurred into an amorphous blob by nostalgia.
But the fact is that DSC literally is constructed differently from all the other TV based Treks. For one thing all the others were based on drama types (though not all the same subtype) and used typical drama plot elements, relied heavily on standard shot/countershot technique for most of the filming, and generally used what is called "TV lighting" (yes, that is a thing) so the sets were relatively bright except for when they needed to emphasize dramatic situations.
DSC on the other hand uses typical action film plot elements and structure, camera techniques (it depends much more on panning and follow shots to build energy and excitement for instance), and generally uses lighting to highlight the spectacle, not the mood. In the case of first season DSC, they used dark broody lighting so much that it became the norm for the show, which did not leave much leeway to use in making it more dramatic (a phenomenon often called "dramatic fatigue").
An action movie is, as the name says, all about the action, excitement, and spectacle. It is primarily visual and "talky" stuff is often minimized or at least not as important. Now this is important: Drama is talky stuff, action is visual stuff.
A drama, again as the name says, about dramatic situations, tense anticipation, and disagreements. Writing for it actually started with radio, not the stage like it did with action. Drama concentrates more on the dialog and dialog conveys complex plots easier than showing people running around and doing things with little or no dialog.
One of the effects of that is the fact that you need more complexity in a dramatic script to keep people's interest and to take up more time. An action script can get by with less complexity because not only is the audience watching the pretty sights and chaos, they will also take more time to figure out for themselves what the characters are doing by their actions as apposed to being told what they are doing by the dialog the way a drama does.
I agree on the first part more or less, though it is not always to the point of 'coastline paradox'. Likewise, a show usually does not end up added to a pedestal once the next one comes out, it just gets less attention so the "buzz" is less (though there is an effect where people get used to a show over time somewhat too).
This is not an argument that pans out. There have been no end of Reddit posts, Facebook shared content, blogs, YouTube videos, and forum posts reevaluating (in particular) the KT and ENT in light of DSC.
It is true there is some blurring over time, and sometimes people come to see things differently over time and come to like a series they "hated" when it was on the first time, but generally the ones who were most vocal in protest or disapproval of particular Treks still see them as trash today. They do not automatically like them just because a new one comes out.
Then there is the matter of degree, for instance many who considered ENT worthless trash still think of it exactly the same way, the only difference is that they see DSC as raw festering sewage that makes the things they hate about ENT seem the lesser evil. (Just for reference, I personally liked ENT, especially the later ones, despite the sloppy way they handled continuity with the other Treks at times, and I personally like DSC well enough despite it seeming more generic sci-fi than Trek at times).
Few if any are "lying" about it, people have different perceptions and some see what others do not and vice versa.
A misrepresentation is a lie. Both post-2017 and pre-2017 Trek are commonly misrepresented in order to vilify the former and deify the latter. The implication made earlier that DSC suffers from plot holes of a magnitude heretofore unseen in the franchise is flat out wrong by any objective standard. The same goes for taking insignificant details and projecting them as a whole experience, for example, using the Daspu' as a example for all of DSCs Klingon ships to be unrecognisable, or a singular purple Klingon as evidence that their skin colours have gone wild. These are magnifying the smallest of sample sizes into ideas that are representative of a whole, bombarding somebody with a gish gallop of insignificant details misrepresented as a systemic issue. This is lying.
Except that a lie requires a certain minimum amount of cognitive dissonance, in other words, to lie someone has to know that they are telling a falsehood and do it anyway. If they see what they as being the truth then they are not lying per se, though they may be in error.
Also, just having a daspu' class in addition to normal Klingon ships would not have been a problem, it is a new ship type so it is irrelevant. What shows that Moonves almost certainly intended a full reboot instead of a historical piece is stuff like when they positively identified what is now called the Sech class as the D7 in the first season. It is only the extreme damage control that CBS did in the last episode or so of the first season and in second season that is bringing DSC in any way closer to the old Prime rather than pushing further away from it.
It is true that some of the same criticisms can be leveled at both DSC and the other TV Treks, but not as many as are common between DSC and the movie Treks, and there are plenty that are unique to DSC (and the others have some unique ones too).
There are no criticism to the structure of DSC (i.e. excluding series specific concepts like the Spore Drive for obvious reasons) that do not also aply, at least once, to every other instalment in the franchise.
Of course, and I was not trying to say otherwise. The point I was making is that DSC shares many more of its faults with the movies than it does with other Trek series. It is a consequence of the action movie style that DSC uses which it has in common with the movies.
The biggest problem is that Moonves seems to have been going for something closer to Kelvin than Prime in a lot of ways, and the production was deliberately steered away from any resemblance to TOS
This not a problem. This is a good thing. The franchise moved away from TOS the moment TMP was reimagined as a film and not as Phase II. No visuals of TOS remain in the franchise from the moment TMP was released. Gone are the pastel colours, white ships, and cold tone phasers. Gone are Russian Klingons and Chinese Romulans. Starfleet goes from a motif of red and black to one of grey and blue which perseveres into the future in VGR and the past in ENT and DSC. Klingons are Viking Samurai and Romulans are East Germans, the Federation are now the UN and not the USA. These are all deliberate changes that separate TOS from every other incarnation. Why would DSC need to retcon that?
Not only is that "they retconned TOS away" nonsense unsupported by anything onscreen, it is actively debunked in TNG, DS9, and ENT which all showed the TOS era looking just the way it did in TOS.
(anecdotes from the people involved contained such things as the fact that, hanging in the design room, was a big sign that screamed in big bold letters "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!").
Good. That is the correct approach. The cylindrical nacelles exist on all ships from the ENT era up to the 2240s (excluding the Walker and NC Class). The Crossfield is a new launch in the 2250s and it (and the other DSC era ships) correctly have boxy nacelles as they are the type of nacelle used in all the new builds in the 70s. IT wouldn't make sense for Starfleet to make cylindrical nacelles, switch to boxy ones, then back to cylindrical nacelles, then back to boxy ones in the 70s and forever after.
I have pointed this out before, plenty of times. The Conni is not a TOS era (i.e. 2260s) ship, it is a relic of an older time, that receives at least two massive refits to keep it relevant. The Crossfield is a cutting edge new launch that will inspire the look of ships like the Excelsior.
Soon, I may even tackle the other thread I forgot about.
Actually, it is NOT the correct approach. The correct approach would have been to show a mix of round engines (along with some smooth armored hulls with the pearlescent white reflective/refractive ceramic coat) on older ships, the oversized clunky boxes on most of the rest, and a few with an early version of the flattened oval hoover type from TMP on some of the newer ships as prototype engines that bridge the old and the new. And speaking of TMP, they showed the tail of a ship in spacedock that had round engines (it was the ship from "Planet of Titans" which the Crossfield class is very loosely based on in fact).
The Enterprise was only ten years old at the start of DSC, there should have been a lot of ships her age and older still operating in Starfleet, as well as civilian vessels that used even older engines.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
uh, drama has been around way, WAY longer than radio days - most of shakespeare's TRIBBLE is drama
Yes, drama itself has, just as drama novels have been around far longer than film or TV. I was referring to the script writing style, and that does come from the radio show drama style rather than the older film style.
uh, drama has been around way, WAY longer than radio days - most of shakespeare's TRIBBLE is drama
Yes, drama itself has, just as drama novels have been around far longer than film or TV. I was referring to the script writing style, and that does come from the radio show drama style rather than the older film style.
uh, drama has been around way, WAY longer than radio days - most of shakespeare's TRIBBLE is drama
Yes, drama itself has, just as drama novels have been around far longer than film or TV. I was referring to the script writing style, and that does come from the radio show drama style rather than the older film style.
This sounds like grasping at straws....
That part only? I mean, the entire argument is based almost entirely on the appearance of the old stuff, as if the entire basis of our love of Star Trek was in the jellybean console buttons and velour shirts.
You could redo every last bit of CGI, and even replace the old model shots with new CGI showing an Enterprise with square nacelles and whatnot, and "Amok Time" would still be "Amok Time". "City On the Edge of Forever" would still be able to make a 55-year-old man mist up at the end. Even "Spock's Brain" would still be "Spock's Brain", Great Bird save us all. (And I'd still believe that the second-worst episode of any Trek ever was "The Omega Glory", and it would have nothing to do with ships or outfits or what a phaser looks like.)
Discovery did not retcon anything other than the visual appearance of consoles really.
The Discovery Connie had many features that are shared with the TOS Connie, such as the actual beam phasers, that are blue, some of the coloration of the Bridge, just "modernized", and many other details that remain faithful to the original while updating the look to match the setting. Hell... Pike's even wearing an updated uniform with TOS asthetics (color and rank stripes).
They didn't update the look of anything TOS in TNG, DS9, or Enterprise because those were basically tributes to TOS, as well as the fact they didn't have any reference for an updated look.
TOS has not been retconned whatsoever. The only thing that is different between Discovery and TOS is visual. If you look at the TOS consoles, they are extremely simplistic. How can you navigate a starship with just a bunch of jellybeans? Now... take that same TOS console, and swap out the jellybeans for Discovery style controls. Same style, but more detail and more believable that that can pilot a complex space fairing vessel.
Hell... someone actually did a fan rebuild of the TOS bridge in a scene, replacing the old 60s inspired consoles with something more advanced looking, and it still worked very well. However Discovery didn't do away with all those mechanical push buttons and toggle switches. There are some still present on the consoles.
Honestly... the visuals are really no different than the sudden change between the TOS and TMP Klingons.
Times change, new technologies become available...
Demanding that an entire series filmed today must look exactly like one made in the 60s... is unrealistic.
Also...
is a pretty good modernization of this.
Still recognizable, but with less wasted space on the consoles and more what we in the 21st Century would consider advanced looking.
And frankly... all of the arguments against Discovery have been used against Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline. "Looks too advanced", "violates canon"... kinda tired of going over the same thing over and over.
Trek is Trek. If people like it, they like it. If they don't... don't try and justify it to others through "citing canon" or "blaming someone" for whatever reason.
Fact is Discovery is covering a time period we don't really know about. Same with Enterprise. Some people wouldn't mind learning more about what the Enterprise-B did in that 70+ year gap between her launch in Generations, and the start of TNG. Not only that, what adventures did the Enterprise-C have before she met her end at Narendra? We don't know. But I have a feeling that unless it looked absolutely 100% perfect, someone would complain. Even if some tiny detail is off... end of the world.
Can't we agree that we all enjoy Trek? We may not enjoy all the same elements, but we all enjoy Trek.
Now... if anyone wants to rip Star Wars ep 8 a new one for the WTF fest that it was...
I am not trying to be nasty when I say this (everyone sees things differently, especially with different training and experiences) but that list has no bearing on what I meant by style (in the sense of genre/subgenre), and it is apparent that you do not see the way the shows relate to those styles.
Well that is true, style to me is how the material is constructed and to you it's superficial stuff like lighting. If you see differences in things based on such shallow analysis then that's on you.
But the fact is that DSC literally is constructed differently from all the other TV based Treks. For one thing all the others were based on drama types (though not all the same subtype) and used typical drama plot elements, relied heavily on standard shot/countershot technique for most of the filming, and generally used what is called "TV lighting" (yes, that is a thing) so the sets were relatively bright except for when they needed to emphasize dramatic situations.
DSC on the other hand uses typical action film plot elements and structure, camera techniques (it depends much more on panning and follow shots to build energy and excitement for instance), and generally uses lighting to highlight the spectacle, not the mood. In the case of first season DSC, they used dark broody lighting so much that it became the norm for the show, which did not leave much leeway to use in making it more dramatic (a phenomenon often called "dramatic fatigue").
An action movie is, as the name says, all about the action, excitement, and spectacle. It is primarily visual and "talky" stuff is often minimized or at least not as important. Now this is important: Drama is talky stuff, action is visual stuff.
A drama, again as the name says, about dramatic situations, tense anticipation, and disagreements. Writing for it actually started with radio, not the stage like it did with action. Drama concentrates more on the dialog and dialog conveys complex plots easier than showing people running around and doing things with little or no dialog.
One of the effects of that is the fact that you need more complexity in a dramatic script to keep people's interest and to take up more time. An action script can get by with less complexity because not only is the audience watching the pretty sights and chaos, they will also take more time to figure out for themselves what the characters are doing by their actions as apposed to being told what they are doing by the dialog the way a drama does.
And this is it in action again. Drama and action are not styles, they're so vauge they're not even themes. They're also meaningless distinctions that can't be applied to the shows in question in any meaningful way. It is not possible to separate pre-2017 Trek from post-2017 Trek just by saying they conform to these 'concepts' (I really can't find a word to describe just how staggeringly non-specific those two concepts are).
It's doing a disservice to DSC by implying it doesn't have constructed and planned plots and relies on action to disguise it, and equally does a disservice to pre-2017 Trek by implying there's no action at all and it's all laid out like a play. Bering in mind this only happens because of your, frankly, useless attempt as shoehorning some distinction between the two in order to try make it fit your prejudgment.
It is true there is some blurring over time, and sometimes people come to see things differently over time and come to like a series they "hated" when it was on the first time, but generally the ones who were most vocal in protest or disapproval of particular Treks still see them as trash today. They do not automatically like them just because a new one comes out.
Then there is the matter of degree, for instance many who considered ENT worthless trash still think of it exactly the same way, the only difference is that they see DSC as raw festering sewage that makes the things they hate about ENT seem the lesser evil.
I never implied that these gibbering morons didn't exist. I just don't believe fandom is overwhelmingly made up of that type of git, even if that is a popular stereotype.
(Just for reference, I personally liked ENT, especially the later ones, despite the sloppy way they handled continuity with the other Treks at times, and I personally like DSC well enough despite it seeming more generic sci-fi than Trek at times).
There is no such thing as 'generic sci-fi'. All sci-fi has its own feel, don't mistake your inability to look at material in a less than superficial way for a work of fictions lack of individuality.
Except that a lie requires a certain minimum amount of cognitive dissonance, in other words, to lie someone has to know that they are telling a falsehood and do it anyway. If they see what they as being the truth then they are not lying per se, though they may be in error.
Yes, they do. Cognitive dissonance is at the root of their objections to DSC in the first place.
instead of a historical piece is stuff like when they positively identified what is now called the Sech class as the D7 in the first season. It is only the extreme damage control that CBS did in the last episode or so of the first season and in second season that is bringing DSC in any way closer to the old Prime rather than pushing further away from it.
There was limited damage control. Klingons got hair and that was about it. The Sech is still a D7 as only the latter name was mentioned onscreen, only the latter name is canon. And DSC never differed from any prime canon as it is, inherently buy its very nature as a CBS produced ST show, prime canon.
Of course, and I was not trying to say otherwise. The point I was making is that DSC shares many more of its faults with the movies than it does with other Trek series. It is a consequence of the action movie style that DSC uses which it has in common with the movies.
This is still wrong though. There are likewise no distinctions between the sorts of issues that crop up in the films compared to the series other than obvious format related ones like runtime. This is another of your pointless distinctions provided as a statement and without specific examples.
Not only is that "they retconned TOS away" nonsense unsupported by anything onscreen, it is actively debunked in TNG, DS9, and ENT which all showed the TOS era looking just the way it did in TOS.
Well done on your reading comprehension. I did not say they retconned the look of TOS, I said they ignored it. No show after looked like it came from TOS and none set before looked like they lead up to it. If you read even more closely I'd even pointed out the specific examples from TNG, DS9, and ENT that did show TOS stuff. DSC follows that tradition by bothering to look like it is set in the same franchise as ENT or TWoK instead of the cheap 60s kitsch of TOS.
Actually, it is NOT the correct approach. The correct approach would have been to show a mix of round engines (along with some smooth armored hulls with the pearlescent white reflective/refractive ceramic coat) on older ships, the oversized clunky boxes on most of the rest, and a few with an early version of the flattened oval hoover type from TMP on some of the newer ships as prototype engines that bridge the old and the new.
And why would that be correct? Because it's your opinion?
None of the DS9 era ships have any refinements of the old TNG era stuff. There's no similarities in hull materials, no similar nacelles, no shapes in common. None of the TNG era ship share any features with the TMP era ships.
The Conni is obsolete, it doesn't need to be anywhere near the 2250s stuff.
And speaking of TMP, they showed the tail of a ship in spacedock that had round engines (it was the ship from "Planet of Titans" which the Crossfield class is very loosely based on in fact).
I am aware. It's most likely a predecessor of the Crossfield and bares a strong resemblance to the tugs that rescued the Enterprise in DSC.
The Enterprise was only ten years old at the start of DSC, there should have been a lot of ships her age and older still operating in Starfleet, as well as civilian vessels that used even older engines.
Except there wasn't. Throughout the entire franchise we have seen (from that era) the Conni, the freighter Huron, the freighters (that may all be variations on the same class) Antares, Woden, and the unnamed drone in TAS. One starship and a maximum of four cargo ships. We don't even have other classes mentioned in dialogue unlike in the TNG era.
If the Conni had any contemporaneous ships, they had TOS, TAS, 6 TOS films, flashback opportunities in three further series and 4 films, as well as flash forwards or time travel shenanigans in a further series and 3 films to show or mention them. Considering the proliferation of ships in the DSC era, TMP era, TNG era, DS9 era, and even the ENT era, it's really not looking like the Conni (and her nacelles) was a particularly successful line.
Their whole argument is. It actually disproves my coastline paradox hypothesis for how people criticise DSC. AS they simply create distinctions so vauge you could plonk almost any fictional world in them and it just badly represents all of pre-2017 Trek as a amorphous blob just in order to pretend DSC is, in any way, different.
Discovery did not retcon anything other than the visual appearance of consoles really.
The Discovery Connie had many features that are shared with the TOS Connie, such as the actual beam phasers, that are blue, some of the coloration of the Bridge, just "modernized", and many other details that remain faithful to the original while updating the look to match the setting. Hell... Pike's even wearing an updated uniform with TOS aesthetics (color and rank stripes).
Though none of that has anything to do with the TOS Conni. DSC takes place in the 50s, it's a new look at the appearance of the ship and uniforms from The Cage, not TOS. A change that respects the majority of the franchise and not just the insignificant part aired in the 60s.
Honestly... the visuals are really no different than the sudden change between the TOS and TMP Klingons.
Times change, new technologies become available...
Demanding that an entire series filmed today must look exactly like one made in the 60s... is unrealistic.
Still recognizable, but with less wasted space on the consoles and more what we in the 21st Century would consider advanced looking.
Yeah, that's not going to make sense to phoenixc. Remember, when TMP did it, it was good because it's part of the indistinguishable and identical block of pre-2017 Trek. When DSC does it, it's bad because it was released after 2017.
And frankly... all of the arguments against Discovery have been used against Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline. "Looks too advanced", "violates canon"... kinda tired of going over the same thing over and over.
And VGR. And DS9. And TNG. And the TOS films. And TAS. And TOS series 3. And TOS' proper after the pilot.
But why bother with nuance and investigating why when you can just lie through your teeth and pretend all those are the same and unobjectionable and it's DSC alone that is wrong.
Now... if anyone wants to rip Star Wars ep 8 a new one for the WTF fest that it was...
It was good film that did justice to existing characters (except Hux), added some interesting new concepts, some decent new characters, and a interesting direction the next film with start from.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though. JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Why? It is just historical trivia about the TV/Radio industry.
Some people seem to feel that Discovery is beyond reproach for some odd reason, so they act like any actual criticism of the show is someone talking out their TRIBBLE or just hate bashing for no reason.
What is this stupid problem people are imagining The Last Jedi has? Over 2 decades before it came out Luke went full on Dark Side apprentice to Palpatine himself in a story that was canon until Disney bought Lucasfilm. Everyone was fine with that, more than fine, Dark Empire is rated among the best SW tales out there. Yet somehow Luke losing hope but not going anywhere near the Dark Side is a problem?
No. More like...
It offed what seemed like a big bad being built up in the previous movie within like 5 minutes of him being on screen.
Holdo's attitude that basically guaranteed a mutiny
A few other various issues
It just felt like it went out of its way in a few places to wreck what was being established.
Kylo Ren trying to brush off Rey's parents as no name scavengers can be handwaved as him messing with her head. And Luke after he gets his mojo back was great. Also seeing Yoda again was great. But there are issues with the movie that are pretty glaring.
Comments
I don't really mind how crazy/poorly made the props/sets are - TOS is one of my favourate series' and it had terrible prop's(and even worse 'klingons' than Disc, which where boderline 'blackface').
I found season 1 of Disc utterely boring, because (I felt) the story was plodding - everytime a Klingon scene occured, my heart sank, as I knew I would be listening to another bout of watching people with too many prothetics attempting to speak 'klingon', whilst they could barley even move thier lips. The subtitles did not bother me, I use them all the time due to my hearing problems.
I found season 1 of Disc so boring, that I had to watch it in very small chunks - every other Trek I have ever watched, I could not get enough of it, and avidly awaited the next episode.
Season 2 improved things for me ALOT - the sense of humour made things a lot more 'Treky' for me. I still find the lead actress incredibly irritating - and I'm glad that they gave some of the other crew more air time. I'm praying that Saru becomes the captain rather than her in Season 3.
But that's just me, many other people loved every bit of Discovery and cant get enough of it.
Last I checked, nothing showed brown Klingons before TMP, or redish ones before ID. You got a point there?
None of them look smashed together. Even the unconventional designs like the Daspu' are fully formed and realised designs.
There are exactly three (M'chala, Qugh, and Sech) that resemble nothing else seen or look particularly 'Klingon'.
The Daspu' and Batlh resemble the Klingon transport from TNG and the rebel transport from ENT respectively, the BortaS bir, Qoj, Qow, and Veqlargh are clearly the same style of design as all Klingon battlecruisers from the Raptor to the Negh'Var and the Chargh, Jach, 'etlh, and Na'Qjej may not look like the traditional battlecruiser but they are clearly Klingon ships with the first two being weapon pods on a engine and the second two being flying blades for stabbing other starships in the face.
Not stupid and certainly not random. It's a Negh'Var but built a long time ago and meant to be exactly what it is. If you can't see ancient Klingons using the dead as armour plating for one of their first starships then you really don't know much about Klingons.
So, there remains exactly zero differences of any significance between the DSC Klingons and any other anymore than, say, between the TUC and IS Klingons, or the TMP and ENT ones.
The Klingons in TAS weren't purple, their uniforms were.
Of course, Kol was the only purple Klingon in DSC anyway, despite westx211's hyperbole, and considering his father was reddish white (caucasian like) it was probably some sort of face paint anyway.
The main skin colours in DSCS1 were blueish grey and brown, though that dosn't support the argument so the singular purple Klingon was chosen. Voq, Kol and T'Kuvma all had unique colours in DSC, the rest all looked the same as always.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Um, JJ Abrams DIRECTED "Star Trek Into Darkness" <--- IE He had quite a bit to do with it. It was the last film (Star Trek Beyond) he didn't have much of a personal/direct hand in.
PWE ARC Drone says: "Your STO forum community as you have known it is ended...Display names are irrelevant...Any further sense of community is irrelevant...Resistance is futile...You will be assimilated..."
All of the production work was Kurtzman in ID. Abrams produced 09 as well as directing it, he only directed the second one. Directors are not the driving force of films they once were. By ID Abrams was already moving on from ST, leaving the other three to do with it as they would.
And even if he was as involved in ID as he was in 09 it change nothing. The film series is not named after the director of the first two, full stop. None of the series are named after the people involved because they all have different executive producers, producers, directors, and writers and the KT films are no different.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
And Beyond, imo, was the only good one of the three. It FELT like a TOS story.
In addition, bluish grey still does support my argument I don't have any idea why it wouldn't? The argument was they look nothing like old klingons who weren't blue and purple? So you actually supported my argument with additional evidence?
And from what I saw about how the Klingon treat their dead in every star trek series they wouldn't put them in coffins in order to shield their ship they would just toss the bodies out. Once theyve done their rituals the bodies is worthless. Klingons don't really do much with it.
Also klingons were brown in the original series. Or atleast very tan. They definitely weren't blue or purple.
The TOS Klingons had several types with different coloring and eyebrow shapes. The Kang style Klingons had dark bronze skin tones that could be termed "brown" readily enough.
The Chargh and Jach look somewhat Lyran to me and probably do so to many other Star Fleet Battles players, which though a minor point does not help much with suspension of disbelief. And as the most un-Trek feeling of Star Trek series it needs all the help it can get in damping down disbelief.
Likewise the Bstlh looks like an ENT Orion design more than anything Klingon (they really should have made some comment about that house buying them instead of building them, it would have improved the realism some by showing interstellar commerce and it is similar to the way smaller nations (or in DSC's case houses) often buy ships from larger ones in the real world). DSC really missed a lot of nuances that would have improved it a lot.
It is true that the Sarcophagus ship resembled the Negh'Var enough to spark recognition when seen from the right angles, though they somehow managed to give it a kind of silly stuffed dragon toy look. The ceremonial drek they wasted so much time on made it clear that the coffins were not "armor" or anything on a practical level, they were the equivalent of carrying holy relics into battle which totally goes against all other cultural depictions of the Klingons (in TOS troops were "just numbers" and in the rest bodies were just empty shells to be disposed of after the death howl rite). Now, if instead they welded the bat'leths or other weapons of legendary heroes to the hull that might be a different story, but even that is a stretch at best.
they renamed the player version of the cleave ship to na'qjej, but the NPC versions are still called chargh
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Which is why Discovery should have had more diversity for their Klingons. If they went with the various different variations of Klingons, then the Discovery Klingons would have been more tolerable. Could have had the TOS Klingons, TNG Klingons, and Discovery Klingons on the same show with maybe one of them being lower class citizens or slaves. Having the TOS Klingons as slaves in Discovery could explain why we never see the Discovery Klingons. The lack of diversity is the same problem that the Romulan and Cardassian Empires have. They are supposed to be interstellar empires and yet we never see of the loyal members of the races that these empires have conquered.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
The fact that they're all different and yet have points of commonalities that the DSC versions also share is the point. Despite the differences between every version they're still all recognisable. It's a pretty obvious point and didn't really need spelling out.
Except the bluish grey is just a minor shade change from the flesh colour of the caucasian Klingons and not significant enough to even notice. That also didn't need explaining.
Considering Klingon mummification glyphs were mentioned previously in the franchise and Klingons general utility nature strapping the dead to the outside of their ship in the past is clearly Klingon behaviour. It also helps that T'Kuvma's mob are religious nuts and are supposed to do things differently.
Wearing goldish brown face is not being brown, it just makes them white and shiny.
You keep fixating on the fact that Kol is purple despite already knowing he's a single Klingon and his father has a natural skin tone so it's probably not Kols natural skin colour either. This is what happens when you don't read properly. You need simple points explaining and you skip the important parts.
No, they're shiny gold/tan. You could call them brown if you wanted but they're still not the same brown they used for the Klingons from TMP to late TNG (excluding TUC).
I don't really care if they look like the ships of some random non-canon race to you and thankfully the producers don't either. It dosn't make a difference to the fact they still conjure the image of a ship a Klingon would build. And DSC is not the most 'un-Trek feeling of Star Trek', there's no such thing.
Firstly, as you;ve already seen in the other topic, there is no Orion design theme. There's 5 Orion ships seen onscreen (well, one is technically on a display), the Interceptor looks Romulan, the Barge looks Hierarchy, the TOS one looks unique, and the TAS one looks Ferengi. They share no features in common so you can't say the Bstlh looks like any Orions ships. It does however look like this. Not as though they were for the same purpose, but enough to say somebody who built one could have built the other.
That's the sort of thing you can headcanon all you want because the show is never going to waste time expositing the origin of a 3 second ship. If you want to believe it's bought from Orions, go for it, you just can't use that headcanon as some sort of argument against the ship itself (like you tried with the Jach and Chargh).
You realise the Sarcophagus is not a combat ship right? It's a floating temple. The interior of the Sech and the bridge of the Cleave ship don't look like the Sarcophagus, and the exteriors don't have the same scaled look because they're about 100 years newer.
The Sarcophagus dates back to a time the Klingons were more into dead people and crewed by religious nutcases who are slightly more pragmatic enough to use the corpses as armour.
It is not a modern ship, it's not a combat ship, it's designed to be over designed.
They did have diversity. Being too lazy to watch the show is not an excuse not to use Google.
They had Klingons with long heads (L'rell), ones with short heads (Kol, T'Kuvma), ones with massive stupid looking heads (L'Rells uncle), ones with heavy makeup but less defined ridges (T'Kuvma), ones with lighter makeup and pronounced ridges (L'Rell is S2 and the woman on the council), ones that look exactly like TNG Klingons but better (K'Vort, Kol-Sha), ones with faces of molten plastic (Voq), and ones that looked like DSC TNG hybrids (Voq ad L'Rell's kid).
We don't need to see 1970s makeup reproduced perfectly to see that Kol-Sha is a TNG style Klingon who's makeup is done on a higher budget.
I agree there should be more types of Klingons in DSC as I consider the KT makeup perfect, I'd love to see that one. I just don't feel the need to pretend there is no diversity in DSC.
His name is K'Vort, after whom the Bird of Prey is named.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
First off, DSC does not feel like the other Star Treks to many people, so there IS such a thing. I linked a video in another thread that goes into the why of that already.
Second, while the few Orion ship designs shown in canon are not a lot alike they are a very old people that in theory could have thousands of different designs from various periods so five that do not look a lot alike is hardly surprising. And, aside from ship designs themselves they do have a style, it is a very ornate, over-the-top, psuedo Middle Eastern one sometimes called "Arabian Nightmare" in Hollywood, and the Bstlh fits that style quite well, it looks like something Aladdin would fly in an "Arabian Nights in Space" type cartoon. It also fits in with the look of the Orion Intruder/Scout seen in the remastered "Journey to Babel" even though it is so clunky compared to it.
Again with that headcanon nonsense? Someone mentioned earlier that the DSC Klingon ships reminded them of something else, I just gave another example, one that would be familiar to SFB players. No "headcanon" involved at all, just similarity of looks.
I know, in the passage you quote from my earlier comment I pointe that same ceremonial thing out to someone who commented that they "armored the hull with their dead" or words to that effect. And what I said about the practice of carrying dead body relics into battle like that not being supported in any other Trek is still true. And even if the ship is not primarily a war ship it is still armed and used for war and their ceremony makes it plain they are using them in a manner similar to the medieval European practice regarding "holy relics" as a rally point in war.
If it dosn't feel like it to you, just say you. Don't make an objective statement that it dosn't feel like the other incarnations of Trek.
TOS feels nothing like DS9, TNG feels nothing like the KT, VGR feels nothing like TAS, but they all feel exactly like Trek, as does DSC. There is absolutely no 'standard' pre-2017 Trek feeling and anybody drawing an arbitrary line at 2017 as for what 'feels Trek' to them is doing it solely to separate DSC from the rest. There's absolutely no objective reason for why a line would be drawn at 2017 and why all pre-2017 Trek can be lumped together, so I've absolutely no interest in watching a video that tries to justify prejudging DSC with bollocks.
I didn't say it was surprising. I've made no comment on my feeling on Orion ship design other than the fact they don't have a unifying ethos. As it happens, I like it, for the same reason I like the variety DSC brings to the Klingon ships, it's realistic.
The guy who owns the Barge in ENT has that going for him and the dancing girl in The Cage. The slavers in ENT have a Mad Max type thing going on, the ones who captured Mudd in Short Treks were similar, and the Orion Quarter on Kronos is a 'wretched hive' type thing, not 'Arabian Nightmare'.
I can't do anything about your eyesight. Other than possessing windows it has nothing in common with it. There's no similar shapes, no similarities in profile, no shared components, different colour, different propulsion system.
Headcanon is the story people tell in their own heads for filling in backstories and exposition a medium would not go into. If you think that's some sort of insult then you're wrong.
None of that is in disagreement with my last post. THe bit you;re disagreeing with was my earlier one where I said they used the dead as armour. I wasn't literally saying they ran out of tritanium part way through and decided to recycle the builders.
Your comment on if it's supported in other Trek is irrelevant because T'Kuvma is an outcast. It's not standard Klingon practice to coat a ship in tombs or to style them like cathedrals and it's not in DSC either.
It's easy to extrapolate T'Kuvmas ideas from the bits of Klingon religion we know about; primarily for Worf who's an unreliable source as most Klingons don't give a sod about religion or honour beyond lip service (hypocrites are infinitely preferable over T'Kuvma's zealots).
The overall point remains, as every new series comes out, it's is nitpicked to such a degree that it becomes a virtual 'coastline paradox' where all that exist are differences. This lasts until the next series comes out and the previously dissected series is now part of the beloved pedestal and the new series is broken down.
Only from a fake retrospect of the past can DSC be seen as significantly different. It's down to users like westx211 to stop saying the first thing that comes into their heads and spend a second thinking about how different it actually is. If the Sarcophagus had appeared in DS9, it would be part of the pedestal of perfection and any issues it may hypothetically have will be played down to insignificance (like most of VGR) in order to continue the artificial divide that is currently separating DSC from the rest. All the stupid criticisms of how different DSC supposedly looks were also used for TMP, and now things are criticised for not looking like TMP.
There's not a single criticism leveled at DSC that couldn't also be found elsewhere in the franchise. No difference of 'feeling' that wasn't also found in every other incarnation of the franchise. No concepts, characters, ships, or looks that are not fully Star Trek in every way.
And I look forward to Picard coming out so people can lie about that rather than DSC for a change.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
> @artan42 said:
> crypticarmsman wrote: »
>
> artan42 wrote: »
>
> And the KT films are not JJ films. He did the first one, had very little to do with the second, and sod all to do with the third.
>
>
>
>
> Um, JJ Abrams DIRECTED "Star Trek Into Darkness" <--- IE He had quite a bit to do with it. It was the last film (Star Trek Beyond) he didn't have much of a personal/direct hand in.
>
>
>
>
> All of the production work was Kurtzman in ID. Abrams produced 09 as well as directing it, he only directed the second one. Directors are not the driving force of films they once were. By ID Abrams was already moving on from ST, leaving the other three to do with it as they would.
>
> And even if he was as involved in ID as he was in 09 it change nothing. The film series is not named after the director of the first two, full stop. None of the series are named after the people involved because they all have different executive producers, producers, directors, and writers and the KT films are no different.
Let us explore it... together. Each man hides a secret pain. It must be exposed and reckoned with. It must be dragged from the darkness and forced into the light. Share your pain. Share your pain with me... and gain strength from the sharing.
If it was just me who sees that difference then I would have said just me. It isn't though, it is one of the most seen statements on Trek (and sometimes other) discussion boards, that DSC feels different from the other (TV-based) Treks. On the other hand, the same observation is rare between DSC and movie-based Trek since the movies tend to be the same action format as DSC (and most who say there is one between DSC and the movies are looking at the props and whatnot, not the plot structure and shooting techniques). And just to clear things up, I was not dissing DSC by saying it is action format, that is just a factual observation, I do not have an axe to grind about which format type they choose.
As I said, that video is not a rant against DSC (though the maker of it does occasionally criticize the way DSC handles the style at times). Also, the "line" you talk about would not be a single one drawn between two blocks of time. While the mood is darker, the action movie plotting style (some call it genre or subgenre but that word is so overused it often confuses people as to which sense it is being use in) of DSC goes all the way back to the early movies and exists alongside the various mixes of drama and procedural subtypes they used on TV Trek at the same time.
We are talking about two entirely different things here, and without a common frame of reference this part of the conversation will inevitably go nowhere.
We seem to agree on the point that a variety of ships is more realistic anyway, despite differences in perception of the styles involved.
Whenever we see Orions in their own settings the "Arabian Nightmare" style is present to at least some degree. The depictions of the slave market and whatnot in ENT are just the kind of starkly utilitarian rat traps that a black market works in (at least in Hollywood productions anyway). The pheromone thing they push so hard in ENT could be why the males go in for cyber-enhancements (as some sort of compensation for instance) but that is not particularly relevant. Despite the grungy cyberpunk overtones (which could very well have been a fad in that lower layer of society at the time) some undertones of the Arabian Nightmare style exist if you look.
The Qo'noS Orions are probably not following their own style as much as conforming to Klingon expectations in their clothing and kiosks and whatnot. It would make sense with the way the Klingons themselves are presented, they would not respect the bikini clad Orions sex-kitten business approach at all, especially since the more alien nature of them could very well make the pheromones and usual "sex sells" business style useless in Klingon territory, and the Orions have nearly always been depicted as brutally pragmatic in their dealings.
It depends on whether you are looking at style cues or literal shapes. Stylistically they do have similarity though the actual shapes are somewhat different. I know a lot of people cannot see the WWII style cues in the NX though the designer did an excellent job of "retroing" the Akira into the NX using subtle P-38 Lightning curves and details either.
I know what "headcanon" is, I have written for fanzines before and fan writer circles use the term a lot. Unfortunately it is an often misused term that some people do misuse as an insult (you are correct in that it is not naturally insulting). Either way, the comparisons I made were not headcanon, merely observations (headcanon would be claiming that they are really Lyran designs stolen by the Klingons or some such thing, not just that the design reminds me of Lyran ships from SFB).
I agree on the first part more or less, though it is not always to the point of 'coastline paradox'. Likewise, a show usually does not end up added to a pedestal once the next one comes out, it just gets less attention so the "buzz" is less (though there is an effect where people get used to a show over time somewhat too).
Few if any are "lying" about it, people have different perceptions and some see what others do not and vice versa.
There is a definite difference in tone and style to DSC compared to the other TV series Treks (though not so much the movies), you just have to see them (and not everyone does, a lot depends on exactly how you look at it). The plot style, the camera work, the lighting, and even the music are all primarily action movie style in DSC and not in all the other series.
It is true that some of the same criticisms can be leveled at both DSC and the other TV Treks, but not as many as are common between DSC and the movie Treks, and there are plenty that are unique to DSC (and the others have some unique ones too). The biggest problem is that Moonves seems to have been going for something closer to Kelvin than Prime in a lot of ways, and the production was deliberately steered away from any resemblance to TOS (anecdotes from the people involved contained such things as the fact that, hanging in the design room, was a big sign that screamed in big bold letters "NO ROUND ENGINES!!!").
I have moved these two quotes to here because they say the same thing. I'll summarise;
DSC does not and can not feel significantly different from pre-2017 Trek for the simple reason the pre-2017 Trek does not have a unified feel. To me they can all be split into eras as follows:
DSC is not constructed any differently from ENT other than being made 15 years later with all the differences being just how much more seamlessly we can integrate visual and digital worlds. To imply that the differences in how, for example, plots are structured in DSC and ENT are so different that the plots of ENT are more similar to TOS than DSC is flat out wrong. This goes for all the other differences outlined above. The idea that this is somehow a widely reflected viewpoint and therefor true is an argumentum ad populum. The only difference is that gap between ENT and DSC means that all the others have been blurred into an amorphous blob by nostalgia.
This is not an argument that pans out. There have been no end of Reddit posts, Facebook shared content, blogs, YouTube videos, and forum posts reevaluating (in particular) the KT and ENT in light of DSC.
A misrepresentation is a lie. Both post-2017 and pre-2017 Trek are commonly misrepresented in order to vilify the former and deify the latter. The implication made earlier that DSC suffers from plot holes of a magnitude heretofore unseen in the franchise is flat out wrong by any objective standard. The same goes for taking insignificant details and projecting them as a whole experience, for example, using the Daspu' as a example for all of DSCs Klingon ships to be unrecognisable, or a singular purple Klingon as evidence that their skin colours have gone wild. These are magnifying the smallest of sample sizes into ideas that are representative of a whole, bombarding somebody with a gish gallop of insignificant details misrepresented as a systemic issue. This is lying.
There are no criticism to the structure of DSC (i.e. excluding series specific concepts like the Spore Drive for obvious reasons) that do not also aply, at least once, to every other instalment in the franchise.
This not a problem. This is a good thing. The franchise moved away from TOS the moment TMP was reimagined as a film and not as Phase II. No visuals of TOS remain in the franchise from the moment TMP was released. Gone are the pastel colours, white ships, and cold tone phasers. Gone are Russian Klingons and Chinese Romulans. Starfleet goes from a motif of red and black to one of grey and blue which perseveres into the future in VGR and the past in ENT and DSC. Klingons are Viking Samurai and Romulans are East Germans, the Federation are now the UN and not the USA. These are all deliberate changes that separate TOS from every other incarnation. Why would DSC need to retcon that?
Good. That is the correct approach. The cylindrical nacelles exist on all ships from the ENT era up to the 2240s (excluding the Walker and NC Class). The Crossfield is a new launch in the 2250s and it (and the other DSC era ships) correctly have boxy nacelles as they are the type of nacelle used in all the new builds in the 70s. IT wouldn't make sense for Starfleet to make cylindrical nacelles, switch to boxy ones, then back to cylindrical nacelles, then back to boxy ones in the 70s and forever after.
I have pointed this out before, plenty of times. The Conni is not a TOS era (i.e. 2260s) ship, it is a relic of an older time, that receives at least two massive refits to keep it relevant. The Crossfield is a cutting edge new launch that will inspire the look of ships like the Excelsior.
Soon, I may even tackle the other thread I forgot about.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
I am not trying to be nasty when I say this (everyone sees things differently, especially with different training and experiences) but that list has no bearing on what I meant by style (in the sense of genre/subgenre), and it is apparent that you do not see the way the shows relate to those styles.
But the fact is that DSC literally is constructed differently from all the other TV based Treks. For one thing all the others were based on drama types (though not all the same subtype) and used typical drama plot elements, relied heavily on standard shot/countershot technique for most of the filming, and generally used what is called "TV lighting" (yes, that is a thing) so the sets were relatively bright except for when they needed to emphasize dramatic situations.
DSC on the other hand uses typical action film plot elements and structure, camera techniques (it depends much more on panning and follow shots to build energy and excitement for instance), and generally uses lighting to highlight the spectacle, not the mood. In the case of first season DSC, they used dark broody lighting so much that it became the norm for the show, which did not leave much leeway to use in making it more dramatic (a phenomenon often called "dramatic fatigue").
An action movie is, as the name says, all about the action, excitement, and spectacle. It is primarily visual and "talky" stuff is often minimized or at least not as important. Now this is important: Drama is talky stuff, action is visual stuff.
A drama, again as the name says, about dramatic situations, tense anticipation, and disagreements. Writing for it actually started with radio, not the stage like it did with action. Drama concentrates more on the dialog and dialog conveys complex plots easier than showing people running around and doing things with little or no dialog.
One of the effects of that is the fact that you need more complexity in a dramatic script to keep people's interest and to take up more time. An action script can get by with less complexity because not only is the audience watching the pretty sights and chaos, they will also take more time to figure out for themselves what the characters are doing by their actions as apposed to being told what they are doing by the dialog the way a drama does.
It is true there is some blurring over time, and sometimes people come to see things differently over time and come to like a series they "hated" when it was on the first time, but generally the ones who were most vocal in protest or disapproval of particular Treks still see them as trash today. They do not automatically like them just because a new one comes out.
Then there is the matter of degree, for instance many who considered ENT worthless trash still think of it exactly the same way, the only difference is that they see DSC as raw festering sewage that makes the things they hate about ENT seem the lesser evil. (Just for reference, I personally liked ENT, especially the later ones, despite the sloppy way they handled continuity with the other Treks at times, and I personally like DSC well enough despite it seeming more generic sci-fi than Trek at times).
Except that a lie requires a certain minimum amount of cognitive dissonance, in other words, to lie someone has to know that they are telling a falsehood and do it anyway. If they see what they as being the truth then they are not lying per se, though they may be in error.
Also, just having a daspu' class in addition to normal Klingon ships would not have been a problem, it is a new ship type so it is irrelevant. What shows that Moonves almost certainly intended a full reboot instead of a historical piece is stuff like when they positively identified what is now called the Sech class as the D7 in the first season. It is only the extreme damage control that CBS did in the last episode or so of the first season and in second season that is bringing DSC in any way closer to the old Prime rather than pushing further away from it.
Of course, and I was not trying to say otherwise. The point I was making is that DSC shares many more of its faults with the movies than it does with other Trek series. It is a consequence of the action movie style that DSC uses which it has in common with the movies.
Not only is that "they retconned TOS away" nonsense unsupported by anything onscreen, it is actively debunked in TNG, DS9, and ENT which all showed the TOS era looking just the way it did in TOS.
Actually, it is NOT the correct approach. The correct approach would have been to show a mix of round engines (along with some smooth armored hulls with the pearlescent white reflective/refractive ceramic coat) on older ships, the oversized clunky boxes on most of the rest, and a few with an early version of the flattened oval hoover type from TMP on some of the newer ships as prototype engines that bridge the old and the new. And speaking of TMP, they showed the tail of a ship in spacedock that had round engines (it was the ship from "Planet of Titans" which the Crossfield class is very loosely based on in fact).
The Enterprise was only ten years old at the start of DSC, there should have been a lot of ships her age and older still operating in Starfleet, as well as civilian vessels that used even older engines.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Yes, drama itself has, just as drama novels have been around far longer than film or TV. I was referring to the script writing style, and that does come from the radio show drama style rather than the older film style.
My character Tsin'xing
You could redo every last bit of CGI, and even replace the old model shots with new CGI showing an Enterprise with square nacelles and whatnot, and "Amok Time" would still be "Amok Time". "City On the Edge of Forever" would still be able to make a 55-year-old man mist up at the end. Even "Spock's Brain" would still be "Spock's Brain", Great Bird save us all. (And I'd still believe that the second-worst episode of any Trek ever was "The Omega Glory", and it would have nothing to do with ships or outfits or what a phaser looks like.)
The Discovery Connie had many features that are shared with the TOS Connie, such as the actual beam phasers, that are blue, some of the coloration of the Bridge, just "modernized", and many other details that remain faithful to the original while updating the look to match the setting. Hell... Pike's even wearing an updated uniform with TOS asthetics (color and rank stripes).
They didn't update the look of anything TOS in TNG, DS9, or Enterprise because those were basically tributes to TOS, as well as the fact they didn't have any reference for an updated look.
TOS has not been retconned whatsoever. The only thing that is different between Discovery and TOS is visual. If you look at the TOS consoles, they are extremely simplistic. How can you navigate a starship with just a bunch of jellybeans? Now... take that same TOS console, and swap out the jellybeans for Discovery style controls. Same style, but more detail and more believable that that can pilot a complex space fairing vessel.
Hell... someone actually did a fan rebuild of the TOS bridge in a scene, replacing the old 60s inspired consoles with something more advanced looking, and it still worked very well. However Discovery didn't do away with all those mechanical push buttons and toggle switches. There are some still present on the consoles.
Honestly... the visuals are really no different than the sudden change between the TOS and TMP Klingons.
Times change, new technologies become available...
Demanding that an entire series filmed today must look exactly like one made in the 60s... is unrealistic.
Also...
is a pretty good modernization of this.
Still recognizable, but with less wasted space on the consoles and more what we in the 21st Century would consider advanced looking.
And frankly... all of the arguments against Discovery have been used against Enterprise and the Kelvin Timeline. "Looks too advanced", "violates canon"... kinda tired of going over the same thing over and over.
Trek is Trek. If people like it, they like it. If they don't... don't try and justify it to others through "citing canon" or "blaming someone" for whatever reason.
Fact is Discovery is covering a time period we don't really know about. Same with Enterprise. Some people wouldn't mind learning more about what the Enterprise-B did in that 70+ year gap between her launch in Generations, and the start of TNG. Not only that, what adventures did the Enterprise-C have before she met her end at Narendra? We don't know. But I have a feeling that unless it looked absolutely 100% perfect, someone would complain. Even if some tiny detail is off... end of the world.
Can't we agree that we all enjoy Trek? We may not enjoy all the same elements, but we all enjoy Trek.
Now... if anyone wants to rip Star Wars ep 8 a new one for the WTF fest that it was...
Well that is true, style to me is how the material is constructed and to you it's superficial stuff like lighting. If you see differences in things based on such shallow analysis then that's on you.
And this is it in action again. Drama and action are not styles, they're so vauge they're not even themes. They're also meaningless distinctions that can't be applied to the shows in question in any meaningful way. It is not possible to separate pre-2017 Trek from post-2017 Trek just by saying they conform to these 'concepts' (I really can't find a word to describe just how staggeringly non-specific those two concepts are).
It's doing a disservice to DSC by implying it doesn't have constructed and planned plots and relies on action to disguise it, and equally does a disservice to pre-2017 Trek by implying there's no action at all and it's all laid out like a play. Bering in mind this only happens because of your, frankly, useless attempt as shoehorning some distinction between the two in order to try make it fit your prejudgment.
Again, not what I've seen.
I never implied that these gibbering morons didn't exist. I just don't believe fandom is overwhelmingly made up of that type of git, even if that is a popular stereotype.
There is no such thing as 'generic sci-fi'. All sci-fi has its own feel, don't mistake your inability to look at material in a less than superficial way for a work of fictions lack of individuality.
Yes, they do. Cognitive dissonance is at the root of their objections to DSC in the first place.
Which is what we got. THe Qoj, BortaS bir, Qaw, Sarcophagus, D7, and the one beginning with V are all normal Klingon ships.
At no point was a new canon ever suggested. It was never intended to be a reboot. Unless you can provide some sort of source for that.
There was limited damage control. Klingons got hair and that was about it. The Sech is still a D7 as only the latter name was mentioned onscreen, only the latter name is canon. And DSC never differed from any prime canon as it is, inherently buy its very nature as a CBS produced ST show, prime canon.
This is still wrong though. There are likewise no distinctions between the sorts of issues that crop up in the films compared to the series other than obvious format related ones like runtime. This is another of your pointless distinctions provided as a statement and without specific examples.
Well done on your reading comprehension. I did not say they retconned the look of TOS, I said they ignored it. No show after looked like it came from TOS and none set before looked like they lead up to it. If you read even more closely I'd even pointed out the specific examples from TNG, DS9, and ENT that did show TOS stuff. DSC follows that tradition by bothering to look like it is set in the same franchise as ENT or TWoK instead of the cheap 60s kitsch of TOS.
And why would that be correct? Because it's your opinion?
None of the DS9 era ships have any refinements of the old TNG era stuff. There's no similarities in hull materials, no similar nacelles, no shapes in common. None of the TNG era ship share any features with the TMP era ships.
The Conni is obsolete, it doesn't need to be anywhere near the 2250s stuff.
I am aware. It's most likely a predecessor of the Crossfield and bares a strong resemblance to the tugs that rescued the Enterprise in DSC.
Except there wasn't. Throughout the entire franchise we have seen (from that era) the Conni, the freighter Huron, the freighters (that may all be variations on the same class) Antares, Woden, and the unnamed drone in TAS. One starship and a maximum of four cargo ships. We don't even have other classes mentioned in dialogue unlike in the TNG era.
If the Conni had any contemporaneous ships, they had TOS, TAS, 6 TOS films, flashback opportunities in three further series and 4 films, as well as flash forwards or time travel shenanigans in a further series and 3 films to show or mention them. Considering the proliferation of ships in the DSC era, TMP era, TNG era, DS9 era, and even the ENT era, it's really not looking like the Conni (and her nacelles) was a particularly successful line.
Their whole argument is. It actually disproves my coastline paradox hypothesis for how people criticise DSC. AS they simply create distinctions so vauge you could plonk almost any fictional world in them and it just badly represents all of pre-2017 Trek as a amorphous blob just in order to pretend DSC is, in any way, different.
Though none of that has anything to do with the TOS Conni. DSC takes place in the 50s, it's a new look at the appearance of the ship and uniforms from The Cage, not TOS. A change that respects the majority of the franchise and not just the insignificant part aired in the 60s.
Yeah, that's not going to make sense to phoenixc. Remember, when TMP did it, it was good because it's part of the indistinguishable and identical block of pre-2017 Trek. When DSC does it, it's bad because it was released after 2017.
And VGR. And DS9. And TNG. And the TOS films. And TAS. And TOS series 3. And TOS' proper after the pilot.
But why bother with nuance and investigating why when you can just lie through your teeth and pretend all those are the same and unobjectionable and it's DSC alone that is wrong.
It was good film that did justice to existing characters (except Hux), added some interesting new concepts, some decent new characters, and a interesting direction the next film with start from.
Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
#TASforSTO
'...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
'...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
'...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek
Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Some people seem to feel that Discovery is beyond reproach for some odd reason, so they act like any actual criticism of the show is someone talking out their TRIBBLE or just hate bashing for no reason.
No. More like...
It just felt like it went out of its way in a few places to wreck what was being established.
Kylo Ren trying to brush off Rey's parents as no name scavengers can be handwaved as him messing with her head. And Luke after he gets his mojo back was great. Also seeing Yoda again was great. But there are issues with the movie that are pretty glaring.